Talk:Al Franken/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Check for quick fail criteria

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Y Has RS references.
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Y appears neutrally written.
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Y no cleanup tags.
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Y No recent or ongoing edit wars or disputes.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Y Not a current event.
6. The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations.

Comments

First of all, thank you very much for taking up this review. My only question is I see you have listed the quickfails, and marked off the ones it passes, but not Q6. Is this because the article has close paraphrasing or copyright violations, or you have just not gotten around to checking? Thanks again, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a new QF criteria and I stopped because I believed it would have required a full review for just that, before I could move on the a GA review. So I asked at the GAN talkpage and was told the Q6 criteria would apply during the review if I discovered such (in other words I can move on but if I do find CR violation it would fail right there). Then I got wrapped up in other issues elswhere. So to answer your question: no, I did not find any copyright violations in my general overview of the article. Sorry for the delay.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   (1) Uhm...Beliefnet.com? I'm sorry but that is not RS. There are so many RS that could be used to source that information I just can't accept that.

(2) Jason Hoppin (April 20, 2009). "Coleman asks high court to look again at rejected votes" is a dead link.

(3) The ST Louis Park Historical Society is not RS.

(4) Filmreference.com is not RS.

(5) Ancestry of Al Franken". Christopher Challender Child is not RS.

• Fixed, replaced with testimony from fellow Senator, Amy Klobuchar.

• Ref 11 Shales, pp. 433–444. I don't see a bibliography section so this is not sufficient information to verify the claim/content. These types of short citations only work when using general referencing and needs to be added in the reference section. Since this appears to be the only citation using this style I suggest just changing it to a full citation. Even as a short citation it is missing the date.

• Ref 9 does show the proper source (title, year, ect), if there's a better way I can improve this please tell me, but I've added another source.

OK, I understand what you did here. As I understand it, the two citations are the same source but different pages. The short citation style is reserved for a single source with the authors listed alphabetically at the end or the reference section, which you have not done. You are using the short citation style incorrectly here (and even if you were, it still requires the date with the authors name to clarify or the title of the book). As I said, that style is for use with general references, but you are not using it as such. It is simply the same reference on a different page. You are required to provide the same information of author, title and/or date with each use in this manner. (Note: This is also supposed to be separated in notes with the general reference in the reference section when using the short citation. I would also note the lack of ISBN numbers but that is not going to effect GA)

I've removed the short citation and kept the long ones, if something's still wrong I'd really appreciate some help.

• The USO official website can't be used to source the information about the award. While it is the official website it should only be used to cite such information on themselves, such as Franken's official site being used. These are not considered RS. It basicly a primary source in this manner and needs additional sourcing.

• Done.

• Reference 14 is too weak to cite as fact, all the information it is being used for alone. It is a single public domain interview of the figure and only his on point of view. It should be attributed to Franken himself: "Franken spoke to 'Interviewer A' about..." I would also only cite up to the point "..chapter accusing O'Reilly of lying" if citing that with the interview alone. But I suggest further reliable sources for the claim about the Fox lawsuit and if possible all of the claim could be supported with better sourcing.

• I've changed the section to focus on the lawsuit instead of the books contents.

Not enough was changed. The use of only a Franken interview with only his point of view is not a RS for staing facts. If you do not wish wish to change the source, change the information to clearly state this is all contrived from Franken himself or it is still very weak as sourcing goes.

I've removed the interview and replaced it with news articles.

Y All of the above have been fixed.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Moving on. There is an entire chunk in the "Political activism prior to election" section that is based on a Huffington Post article by Franken (ref 26). I have some problems with this section. First, Franken himself is not independent from the source. He is the source. This is a statement of opinion and because it involves opinion of others it really should be from a secondary source. Because the qualified ( "Franken wrote..." ) mention from Franken's book depends on the other passages, it to is a bit innapropriate. The subject of the article is Franken not these other figures. I feel this entire section has no place in this article and I would not be able to list GA with its inclusion. Y I have removed this per our BLP policy as containing contentious claims about others per WP:BLPREMOVE. For this particular article it is poorly sourced.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref 31, IMDB is not RS. It also does not support the claim directly but is simply a link to the rating the site gives to the film along with credits. We need a secondary souce that states this.

• Fixed.

Refs 54 and 55 are government documents and website schedules. They are primary sources and cannot be used to source facts. These are good to retain as primary sources but need additional sources that directly support the claims.

• Fixed.

Ref 61 is actually a press release written by Franken's press secretary and printed in its entirety in the Grand Forks AFB website. It is not independent of the subject. This needs a more reliable secondary source.

• Fixed.

Ref 64 appears to have a run time error. Not sure if this is a broken link or just not available. Suggest checking this yourself to see what happens when you click it. If you see no errors, nothing need be done. If you also see this, please remove the link and replace it with more information to verify the source.

• Fixed.

Ref 72, Rasmussen Reports is raw data from a poll. It is a primary source and requires secondary sourcing.

• Fixed.

Ref 77, The Uptake.com, Not RS.

• Ref 80 does not support the claim. This is simply her bio page at Huff Post. Nothing links her to Franken. It is sufficient for her information as written but needs additional sourcing from a secondary source demonstrating that she is indeed Franken's daughter YFixed.

Ref 8, "Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live" requires a page number.

The "Saturday Night Live" section has large portions that are unreferenced.

• I've requested the book from my library, should have these two fixed in the next couple days. Ive added the page # and added references.

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Perhaps the most thoroughly documented images I have seen during a GA review. Excellent.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Now, here we have some issues.

(1) The Ramstein Air Base image is well captioned (and even better now)...but has absolutely no relevance to the prose or text in the entire article. No issue. My mistake. There is a reference in the text going back to activity strarting in 1999. Image has relevance.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• What's the issue with this? It is a picture of him entertaining apart of the USO.

(2) Same issue with the 2009 image if the subject at Rochester, Minnesota in the "Political activism prior to election" section. No relevance to any text in article. Also lacks a decent caption.

(3) In the "US SENATE" section we have two images that do not look that different and I can see no apparent reason to have both. The "Franken campaigning for U.S. Senate" is the better of the two. I would prefer there be some image of the subject before his politcal career. This may require a fairuse image. Since there are free images available of the subject this may not pass non free content guidelines so it won't count against the article, but would be nice if there was some way to get something in there (just my own preference)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Removed and rearranged photos.
• It would be nice if the images were staggered but won't effect a GA listing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer comments

Stopping for the day and will return later this afternoon or evening. So far this is not looking good. Beliefnet.com could be argued to be RS however, its really just a blog and not in a newsworthy sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit sick today. Logged on to leave a massage and deal with some issues. Be back to this in the next day or so. Apologies.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Been a bit busy but should be able to wrap this up in the coming days. Good work by the User:Grammarxxx.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Adding to Amadscientist's review: the lead needs a rewrite. The first paragraph, especially the first sentence, should mention both his political and entertainment careers in a broad summary style without going into too much detail. See WP:MOSINTRO. Then the second (and probably third, given the length of the article) paragraphs should go into more detail about his television/film/books, the election results, etc. —Designate (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)