Talk:Mel Carnahan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll write up a review for this article within the next few days, and then we can see what it still needs to meet the good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FountofInterestingInfo, I've done the sourcing portion of the review, and there's a problem that needs to be addressed. The use of newspaper sources means that they only describe the individual events, but they don't provide context, and they can't be used to establish a pattern because they don't describe one explicitly. I go into more detail about this below. You'll need to go through the article to make sure it only says what the sources say without adding any additional facts, making any inferences, or analyzing them yourself in any way. I suggest we close the review for now so that you can do this at your leisure, and then you can renominate once you're sure that every part of the article corresponds to a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did make a few of the changes to the highlighted sections below. I'm sure that won't be it and I'm not going to resubmit it yet. I will try to check the sources in the next few days and hopefully we can get this done soon. Thanks for agreeing to edit this. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Hi. I've combed through the article again and caught a few mistakes. I have fixed them, and checked to make sure each source said what was being attributed to it. I also added new sources from journals and books. So that should round the article out a bit. I also fixed the specific instances you mentioned down below and reduced any possible original research. I think I fixed many of the issues you mentioned. If you could give the article a second look so we can take the next steps, or potentially find what else needs fixing, I'd appreciate that.

Also, another person and I had a discussion down below over whether the info box should mention he was elected posthumously. If you have any insight on that issue, I'd appreciate you sharing it. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look over it again soon and see if the sourcing issues have been fixed. If they have, then I'll review the rest of the article. Regarding the info box, such a label might be non-standard, but I won't make an issue out of it for GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FountofInterestingInfo, I've looked over the article again, and I found a couple more instances of unsourced statements. But while going over it, I also noticed a bunch of minor prose issues. Articles should usually be given a full copy edit before nomination. I'm going to end the review as unsuccessful. The article certainly isn't bad by any means, it just needs another once over before it's ready for a good article nomination. You can renominate it at any time; if you're interested in nominating it again, it needs to be gone over to make sure every thought expressed by the article is explicitly supported by the citation that comes after it. It also needs a copyedit to make sure that the writing and presentation are in line with the good article standard of "clear, concise, and understandable", preferably without any typographic or formatting issues. If you're not sure what to look for, you can ask the Guild of Copy Editors to take a look at it. You can also post it at peer review to get a second opinion on more specific issues like sourcing, but be aware that it can take a while before those get a response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable.
I ran it through the Earwig copyright violation detector, and it turned up clean.
I don't like that most of the sources are decades old. It's preferable to use more recent sources that go through the events to decide what's significant. It can still meet the good article criteria with these sources, but we're limited to simply describing the events. We would need other sources to explain the significance of these events or what effects they had. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, I did a Google Scholar search for sources about Carnahan, and two interesting ones came up: this article about the legality of his senate election and this article that summarizes his career. I haven't read them, but they're the sort of source that's helpful for writing a well-rounded article. These are both behind a paywall at HeinOnline, but once you become more active, you'll qualify for WP:The Wikipedia Library, which will give you access.

Spot checks to ensure the sources support what they're supposed to and to make sure that it's original writing:

[2] Belluck (2000):
- This source doesn't mention "Ellsinore, Missouri", so I'm assuming one of the others do.
- This source is in front of the following: However, owing to poor weather conditions, the twin-engine Cessna airplane he was flying on, which was piloted by Randy, lost control in rainy and foggy conditions and crashed on a forested hillside near Goldman, Missouri, only about 35 miles (56 km) south of St. Louis. All three on board the plane were killed in the crash. – But there are a lot of details here that the source does not support. For example, how do we know they were in a Cessna?
[6] Charton (2000):
- This uses the exact same phrase as the source: he failed the physical for becoming an Air Force pilot. It should be reworded so it doesn't look like plagiarism.
- "Improving teacher performances" isn't quite the same thing as "vocational programs and better teacher training".
[29] Bulletin Journal (1980) Y
[55] The Southeast Missourian (1990) – This is a good example of why newspaper sources aren't always helpful. The newspaper doesn't actually say that it was a frequent cause of conflict or that this is a recurring thing. It just describes one instance. It also doesn't say that this is when it came to a head, because again, it's just describing an isolated event. Based on this source, we don't know about anything related that might have happened before or after the 1990 dispute.
[59] Dao (2000) Y
[125] STLPR (2002) – I don't see anything here to support 2% margin.

A few more spot checks:

[4] Charton (2000) – Checked all five uses. There are multiple claims under "Early life and education" that this does not support.
[24] "Carnahan returns to politics after fourteen-year absence". Bulletin Journal (1980) – Checked both uses. Y
[67] Stapleton (1993) – This doesn't say when Carnahan was sworn in.
[132] Adams (2002) – Checked both uses. Y

Broad in its coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated

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.