Talk:Stephen Huneck/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Citation [2] in the prose is usually unnecessary. Consider moving (do not delete) it to his death section and expand further with it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Headings need to be reworked. Change "Biography" to "Early life and education". Have designated "Career" heading, with sub-headings "Origins and discovery (1984)", "Injury and recovery (1994-1994)" etc. Review MOS:TIMELINE for "List of works".
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spouse information uncited. Consider removing citation in Infobox as it is redundant.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I feel as if the information overall may require significant additions to qualify for GA status (See WP:GA? "3. Broad in coverage").
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Attempt inserting the paragraph “Outside of initial cutting and final sanding…” into another section to keep it focussed and concise (as opposed to a separate point).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'll allow 48 hours for these changes to be attempted. If there's no changes or changes aren't adequate, I'll have to fail this nomination.

Thanks, I'll get started on these. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk · contribs) 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Some further comments:

Improve short description

·      Talk briefly about published work

·      Discuss Dog Mountain location (his personal work/involvement in its creation)

·      Other guiding points in the link above

·      Example addition: He has published many children's books, including (Book title), which was a New York Times Children's Picture Book Best Seller in September, 2000.

Work section

Reword “the main character of which was Sally” to something like "In addition to carvings, Huneck wrote several children's books with Sally the dog as their main character."

Spelling, grammar and syntax

·      Clarify "Friends of Dog Mountain". I feel as "Friends" is ambiguous. Consider "Visitors" or other similar terms (or Friends of Huneck).

·      “describes the chapel” to “describe the chapel”

·      Further checks will be done just before the overall assessment.

Bibliography section

·      Book citation template use (Instead of just ISBNs). See WP:MOS-BIBLIO. This may also help WP:BIB.

Consider Death and Legacy section(s) (I think one section heading as Death and Legacy works better due to it being a shorter article)

Place this at the end of the article but before Bibliography.

Death

·      I’m wary of 3 citations for a single sentence. Consider using the citations as an opportunity for the feedback below (slight additions).

·      Move death from Career section

·      Move Olympic work to career section (as it is apart of his career).

·      Expand more on later life (is there a lead up, diagnosis of depression at early age or after his career accident? Shared any insight/struggles in an interview etc?). This is to satisfy that the topic is covered broadly.

·      Death mentions his psychiatrist. Any information or mention before 2010 on when/why started visiting (again to satisfy broad coverage) would be good. 1 sentence.

Legacy

·      Start with the immediate aftermath of death:

o   Mention a part of the The New York Times tribute to him

o   Coverage of Dog Mountain (Important as main work). Did anything specific happen after his death such as tributes, vigils or memorials erected?

·      Legacy includes existing locations, works, museums etc. (as in, he is survived in his work, museums).

·      I’d recommend moving his books into his career section (maintaining chronology).

Other comments

References seem reliable and live (although this will be checked thoroughly in the coming days, giving you time to ensure all references are live and full information is provided).

Please support the date of death for his wife. It may be necessary to insert a citation in Huneck's Infobox to avoid main body clutter.

Though on a fairly different topic matter, perhaps reading a Good Article such as the one linked here may give some guidance and inspiration for areas to expand on and the feedback I’m providing (for the Short Description, Death, Legacy sections etc.). BritneyErotica (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, BritneyErotica. I'm going to work through this, but won't be able to make your 48-hour deadline. If you can hold off on a pass/fail decision until after the weekend, that would be appreciated. If not, thanks for all the help in ID'd ways to improve the article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I should've clarified that I just wanted to see progress made in the initial 48 hours. I'm fine with setting the deadline for 22 August. BritneyErotica (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tcr25 Just reminding you that this is still pending. While it's been well over a week, I'd like to know if you can make changes as soon as possible (as they are quite minimal). If not, and as I also have been unexpectedly busy, I can fail this nomination until you have time to make the changes and submit it again. BritneyErotica (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@BritneyErotica @Tcr25 "well over a week" has become "well over two months". It sounds like this should be closed as failing. RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry ... life gets in the way. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean, "Yeah, you should go ahead and fail it", or "Yeah, I commit to dealing with this quickly"? RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and fail it. I'm not going to be able to focus on it at this point... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.