Jump to content

Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Result: Failed. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Initial thoughts

[edit]

I did some light MOS cleanup; if you disagree with any of that we can discuss it as part of the review. I did a review of the first eight sources cited and I feel it would be most productive to break here and give you the opportunity to review the entire article yourself and make certain that everything is properly sourced.

I use a fair amount of markup in my review; please let me know if you have any difficulty reading it. You can make general replies under General discussion at the bottom of the review. For replies to specific parts of the review, please make indented replies under those points. I will try to suggest helpful edits and am amenable to discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lead is too long/fragmented, needs copyedit for conciseness and cohesion.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Small amount of inadequately sourced material, a portion of which the nominator stated was taken from the subject's linkedin page.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Too much information on subject's book, which has its own article.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Need to rephrase some material attributed to primary sources
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    An occassional target of vandalism.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Closed early at nominator's request, at which time the article did not meet the GA criteria. The article could meet the criteria with a little constructive editing.

Review comments

[edit]

Referencing & verifiability

[edit]
  • ref named "rookie" University of Calgary Top 40 Alumni. I wouldn't call this an unconnected source but should be good for basic fact checking. Used twice:
    • Craig was born in Calgary, Alberta, growing up in its Charleswood neighbourhood, and attended the University of Calgary, graduating in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Government. Does not support any of the underlined material.
    • She was also a summer intern for the Windsor Star in 1991, and after winning the inaugural Edward Goff Penny Memorial Prize for young journalists, she was offered a full-time job as a reporter at the paper in Windsor, Ontario. None of this is supported by the source. The non-underlined part could be covered by the source used for the award in the Awards list (unnamed reference [23] as of this timestamp).
      I fixed the sources, however for the paragraph relating to The Windsor Star, the source was just at the end of the paragraph and the reference named "rookie" was unnecessary there - so I removed it. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so you added two citations for the first bullet point above and removed the citation to "rookie" for the second bullet point above. (Next time, it would help if you specified your changes; if you just say "I fixed the sources" I've got to go through the diffs to discover what you did before I can assess whether it fixed the issue.)
  • new unnamed reference "Journalist whose Pulitzer-worthy work skewered Trump's business claims comes home" Calgary Herald. Used once:
    • Craig was born in Calgary, Alberta, growing up in its Charleswood neighbourhood, and attended the University of Calgary, graduating in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Government. Covers the neighbourhood, hometown, but see below.
  • unnamed reference reference named "gauntlet" Discover Susanne Craig's journey at U of Calgary. Also connected, she's giving a talk at an alumni conference. This piece is dated 13 August 2019, three years after the access date in the citation template (which appears to be a typo). Used once twice:
    • In conjunction with the two sources above for: Craig was born in Calgary, Alberta, growing up in its Charleswood neighbourhood, and attended the University of Calgary, graduating in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Government. Source states that she was "a UCalgary political science student" and graduated with a BA in the class of 1991. That much is good. However, none of the three sources state her degree or major as "political science and government". Suggest removing the "and government".
    • While at the University of Calgary, she reported volunteered for the campus paper The Gauntlet where she got her start in reporting. Does not cover the underlined part. I suggest omitting this as assumed.
    • This source could also be used for her major of political science.Checked
      All the information in the "Discover Susanne Craig's Journey" is available in the other sources listed so that reference is no longer in needed. [User:Lisha2037|Lisha2037]] (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what you mean. Instead of removing the "gauntlet" citation as unneeded you added another citation to this source. Is it possible you're talking about another source? (This is why it's good to name all references.)
  • unnamed reference Instagram. Primary source. Used once:
    • She also became friends with fellow student and future Mayor of Calgary Naheed Nenshi. I feel that this is a weakly sourced and perhaps not important enough to include.
  • unnamed reference "Former Calgary Herald writer" Calgary Herald. The |publisher= field in {{cite news}} is used incorrectly. It should be |newspaper=Calgary Herald and |publisher=Postmedia Network and in this case, |agency=Postmedia News. (Authorship is to Postmedia News staff writers, with the piece likely carried by multiple Postmedia newspapers.) Used once:
    • Craig began her career as a summer intern for the Calgary Herald in 1990 where she covered various city transit topics and the career of Canada’s first elected senator, Stan Waters. Although she struggled finding work due to a lack of formal education in journalism, her experience at the Herald encouraged her to keep pursuing a career in reporting. Checked
    • This also covers her political science majorChecked
  • unnamed reference Former Star journalist Susanne Craig named to Order of Canada Windsor Star. This appears to have moved to https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/former-star-journalist-susanne-craig-named-to-order-of-canada . Same newspaper/publisher issue as above, the Windsor Star is also a Postmedia Network publication. There appears to be a typo in the date, which should be 29 December 2023. Try to avoid all-number forms which can be ambiguous. Used once:
    • (Note: citations were rearranged for this source to cover the entire paragraph) She was also a summer intern for the Windsor Star in 1991, and after winning the inaugural Edward Goff Penny Memorial Prize for young journalists, she was offered a full-time job as a reporter at the paper in Windsor, Ontario. She then spent four years at The Star where she worked as one of their police reporters and covered the North American Free Trade Agreement and Heinz’s operations in Leamington, Ontario. The source says that she began at the Star on a "summer contract". Found "summer internship" at the Star in new source "cbc".


  • unnamed reference Susanne Craig NYTimes. Primary source. Used once (then removed and used again further down):
    • where she became the recipient of several Gerald Loeb Awards including one for deadline writing on the resignation of New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso. Additionally, she was the lead journalist on a team that was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize for National Affairs Reporting in relation to coverage of the Lehman Brothers and their role in the financial crisis of 2008. Not in source.
      • Citation removed and replaced with unnamed references to WSJ and AGO (other citations address the struck part). See below.
    • Citation added for first sentence of NYT section. See below.
  • new unnamed references "AIG, Lehman Shock Hits" WSJ and "Power, Money and Trump" Art Gallery of Ontario. Subscription required for WSJ, suggest adding |url-access=subscription to the citation template; found it archived at ProQuest, suggest adding |id={{ProQuest|399089034}} to the citation template. WSJ is a primary source, co-written by subject. AGO is selling tickets for a talk by the subject, so also connected. Used together for:

Next section, four sources used in combination for the first sentence:

  • "timesunion.com" used here and for an award. Citation is missing the author, Casey Seiler.
  • unnamed reference "Susanne Craig leaving WSJ for the NYT Columbia Journalism Review. Used once. Citation is missing the date, 30 Aug 2010, and should probably use {{cite magazine}}.
  • unnamed reference "Journal's Susanne Craig Jumps to NYT" New York Magazine. used once. Citation is missing the author, Chris Rovzar.
  • unnamed reference "Susanne Craig" NYT website. Primary source, an autobiography. Used once.
    • In 2010, she joined The New York Times to continue reporting on Wall Street and was later promoted to bureau chief for coverage of the New York State government. In 2015, Craig left Albany to become the Times' New York City Hall bureau chief. Timesunion covers the first sentence. CJR has her moving to NYT in 2010 for financial reporting (BTW, it also has better independent coverage of the Pulitzer Prize finalist above). NYMag has the 2010 move from WSJ to NYT. The autobiography provides nothing new. Underlined passage not found in sources.
  • unnamed reference "Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades" NYT, primary source, co-written by subject. Paywalled. Found this archived at ProQuest 1824923755 via the Wikipedia Library. There is a fourth author on the piece: Russ Buettner. It would be preferable to replace this with a free and independent reliable source. Used once.
    • On October 1, 2016, The New York Times published an article authored by Craig and her colleagues David Barstow and Megan Twohey, which stated that Donald Trump had reported a loss of $916 million in 1995, which could have allowed him to avoid paying income taxes for up to eighteen years. Checked
  • unnamed reference "Times Reporter Susanne Craig Thinks" NBC News. Used once:
    • In subsequent television interviews, Craig identified herself as the reporter who had received a portion of Trump's 1995 tax records in her mailbox from an anonymous sender.Checked
  • unnamed reference "Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father" NYT. Primary source, co-authored by subject. This one is not currently paywalled. The story and article have the date as 2 October 2018, but the citation has 2 November 2018. I also found it archived at ProQuest 2610775014, Page F1, with the date 7 October 2018.
    • On October 2, 2018, the Times published a 14,000-word exposé co-authored by Craig, David Barstow, and Russ Buettner titled Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father. Okay except for the wordcount.
      • I found the wordcount in Calgary Herald "Former Calgarian wins Pulitzer for uncovering Trump's questionable finances", though it might be better to say it was one of the NYT's longest pieces of investigative journalism (also in the suggested source).
  • unnamed reference "Times Report: Trump Wealth Largely Based on Tax Scams and Bailouts From Dad" Mother Jones (magazine). Used once:
    • The findings of the story was based on over 100,000 pages worth of documents, both public sources and private disclosures, that revealed the inner workings of Trump's financial practices and misleading statements about his self-made wealth and business empire. The most common form of financial crime reported was valuation fraud. The first two clauses are from Mother Jones quoting the NYT story. So it might be best to rephrase that a bit. Otherwise good.
  • named ref "Pulitzer" Should be a good source but I'm unable to access it (Cloudflare error) and the Wayback Machine seems to be experiencing problems as well.
    • In 2019, Craig and the two other reporters shared the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for "an exhaustive 18-month investigation of President Donald Trump's finances that debunked his claims of self-made wealth and revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges". The first part is generally verifiable, Google turned up the quote in a snippet view, though I couldn't directly load the Pulitzer website.Checked
    • Also used in Awards list.Checked
  • unnamed reference "New York Times Wins Two George Polk Awards" NYT. Subscription. At ProQuest 2183304980. Citation erroneously has author's last name as Polk, it should be Sullivan. Used once:
    • They also shared the 2019 George Polk Award for Political Reporting.Checked
    • This is actually used twice, there's a duplicate of this in the awards list. Name the reference so it doesn't appear twice in the reflist.
  • unnamed reference "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance" NYT, primary source, authored or co-authored by subject. Subscription. ProQuest 2446440372, dated 28 September, has co-authors Russ Buettner and Mike McIntire. Used once:
    • On September 27, 2020, she and others further reported on Trump's tax record, exposing that Trump paid $750 in federal income tax during 2016 and no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.Checked
  • unnamed reference "Former Star journalist Susanne Craig named to Order of Canada" This same source is used twice. Name one of them and call the named reference for the other. Note that there appears to be erroneous data in the citation template. Used (again) for:
    • Craig has stated that since her coverage of Trump and his finances, she has received death threats and high-profile criticism including a lawsuit initiated against her, her colleagues and her paper by Trump, which was later dismissed.Checked
  • unnamed reference 'It's much larger': Trump's financial penalty nightmare may not be over, NYT reporter says. Change the citation to {{cite news}} with parameters |first=Ali|last=Velshi|authorlink=Ali Velshi|date=17 February 2024|work=Velshi||via=YouTube
    • In 2021, Craig started serving as an on-air analyst for MSNBC, where she speaks about her research into Trump's finances, tax returns, and his indictment and criminal trial. I don't know; this is an example. Do you have a time in the video where it says she started serving as an MSNBC analyst in 2021? Let me know, and add the time to the citation.

Lucky Loser – I'm just going to quickly go over the sources (only the first one is named):

Awards list:

Breadth & focus

[edit]

The section on the book takes focus away from the writer of the book. I would suggest moving any information which is only here over to the article on the book (there are various merge templates but if you wrote the material for both articles you may just copy&paste with a suitable edit summary linking to here). Then reduce what's here to a concise summary, maybe two sentences, keeping the focus on the writer, and probably incorporate it into the New York Times section as this belongs to that period of her career.

Regarding her book. I would prefer we keep that section separate from the NYT as it is her own work and not published by her paper. I modeled that part after Mary Trump's article which had a separate section for her book. Since it has only gotten released there is not as much coverage of it as Mary's but I am very sure it is only going to increase as her book keeps climbing the charts. I have shifted the focus more on how she developed the book rather than just the book itself. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to look to another article as an example, pick a featured article. FA Peter Jennings is about a well-known TV journalist. He co-wrote a 600-page book that topped the NYT best-seller list, and the article has about 70 words of prose on it. Another, less successful book got 130 words of prose. Note also that that's a 6000-word article, so the proportion is only about 1 or 2% of the total.
As more RSS emerge on the book, then information should be added to Lucky Loser (book). That information can then be summarized in this article, but should be kept very short with the focus on the author.
I checked, and everything that's here is in the article on the book (sometimes verbatim) so nothing will be lost by removing material here.
I suggest replacing the entire section with something like the following: Craig wrote her first book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created The Illusion of Success, with Buettner, published in September 2024. A detailed continuation of their earlier reports, the book investigates all aspects of Trump's life[cite Washpost] and dismantles the narrative of Trump as a successful self-made businessman.[cite Axios]

I feel that the lead is too long for the size of the article and definitely has too many details about the former reality TV personality. I would suggest a tighter summary of the article with one or perhaps two paragraphs.

The lead has been modified and shortened with more focus on Craig. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest replacing the lead with:
Susanne Craig CM is a Canadian investigative journalist and author who works at The New York Times. She gained prominence for her reporting on the finances of Donald Trump. Craig is also known for her coverage of the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and of New York State and New York City politics. She has also worked for The Globe and Mail and The Wall Street Journal.
Craig's investigations into Trump include an exposé on his 1995 tax returns and a Pulitzer Prize-winning report on his inheritance of hundreds of millions of dollars from his father through questionable tax practices. In 2024, she co-authored the book Lucky Loser about Trump's financial and business practices.

The Windsor Star source mentions death threats she's received; I feel that this could be mentioned in the article.

Death threats and lawsuit added. Might add the amount the judge ordered Trump to pay them in legal costs if the rest of article looks polished to you. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unnamed reference "Journalist whose Pulitzer-worthy work skewered Trump's business claims comes home" Calgary Herald mentions she is one of U.S. President Donald Trump’s "enemies of the people." and quotes her saying “We undergo active shooter training. . . I’m a lot more careful than I used to be covering the president.”. The first could give more context to the threats and the second shows its impact upon her life.
Klarman, Michael J. (November 2020). "The Degradation of American Democracy – and The Court". Harvard Law Review. 134 (1): 20. JSTOR 10.2307/27028353. notes that Trump has dismissed Craig's investigations of his taxes as "fake news".

Stability

[edit]

No edit warring detected. An infrequent vandalism target.

Neutrality

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

For the infobox, suggest removing the unsourced citizenship, remove the Order of Canada from awards (it already has a prominent place above as CM), and moving the website link out of the infobox and to an External links section at the end of the article. Also, the newspaper names should be in italics.

Info box modified. I am pretty sure she mentioned in an interview she is an American citizen but I will have to find it before adding that information again. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there's a tendency when building an article to go broad, to include everything you can. Reviews are times to pare things down and this is one of those places. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I would suggest removing the citizenship altogether. Also, please add italics per the above.

Media

[edit]

Single image, possibly a selfie, with PD release.Checked

Other areas to improve

[edit]

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

  • I've given some notes above about filling out the citation templates. Strictly speaking, this is not necessary as part of the GA criteria. However, it does make it a lot easier for reviewers to check sources when the templates are used correctly and consistently. It also helps if the references are all named consistently, so that they can be easily referred to in discussion. (Otherwise, the citation numbers will change as the article is edited.)
  • For accessibility, the infobox image should have |alt= text. This is required at FAC.

General discussion

[edit]

As mentioned above, I am breaking after reviewing the first eight sources cited in the article, as there were citation issues around most of them and I feel that the article would benefit from a good all-around check by the nominator. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Since there was an editor on this before me, there is definitely many inconsistences in the first part of the article, but the sources do get better as you progress as I overtook the direction of page later on. I am currently working on your comments.
1. The lead has been modified and shortened with more focus on Craig.
2. I fixed the sources, however for the paragraph relating to The Windsor Star, the source was just at the end of the paragraph and the reference named "rookie" was unnecessary there - so I removed it. It looks most sources are in the article just in the wrong positions, but I have added the ones I found are missing. The missing sources regarding the FP, the WSJ, and her promotion at the NYT have been added.
3. Regarding her book. I would prefer we keep that section separate from the NYT as it is her own work and not published by her paper. I modeled that part after Mary Trump's article which had a separate section for her book. Since it has only gotten released there is not as much coverage of it as Mary's but I am very sure it is only going to increase as her book keeps climbing the charts. I have shifted the focus more on how she developed the book rather than just the book itself.
4. Death threats and lawsuit added. Might add the amount the judge ordered Trump to pay them in legal costs if the rest of article looks polished to you.
5. All the information in the "Discover Susanne Craig's Journey" is available in the other sources listed so that reference is no longer in needed.
6. Info box modified. I am pretty sure she mentioned in an interview she is an American citizen but I will have to find it before adding that information again.
That is all for now. I f you have more comments as you analyze the rest of the article let me know.
Lisa Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: Are you done? Have you made all of your changes and are satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria? I'm confused because at the top of this you wrote "I am currently working on your comments" but just above the signature you wrote "That is all for now", and it's all a single post with the same timestamp. So are you working or are you done? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming you would have more comments cause you said you only reviewed the first 8 sources. So I have worked on the current comments you made but will work more once you have more. Lisha2037 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: Okay. (You are finished.) I know this isn't your first time at GAN but maybe I have to be very clear here. When you nominate an article at GAN, you aren't just nominating your contributions to the article but the entire article. The nomination instructions (WP:GAN/I#N1) state Ensure that the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article ... Then check the article against the good article criteria and make any improvements that you think are necessary. I felt that the article had a lot of problems and that the nomination was premature. I suggested that you give the article a good all-around check with particular attention to sourcing. I may be going a bit tougher on you than the reviewers of your previous GANs, but there are BLP issues here and I feel that any article even peripherally addressing the former reality TV personality needs to be bulletproof against vandalism and disinformation. So, before I proceed with the review, I would like to ask for your assurance that you have checked everything and that you are confident it meets the GA criteria. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi yes. I believe it does. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit previous to this one, I copied your comments from the numbered paragraphs above and pasted them to follow the review comments they are in response to. Otherwise, it will be difficult to follow if we have to keep scrolling up and down as this review gets longer. I'm going to get back to the review now and will ping you when I'm finished. Please do not edit the article while I'm reviewing, thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: Okay, I've gone through all the sources. I'm a bit concerned about the number of primary sources but for the most part these are used to verify the stories she's written. They are adequate here but for FA they should all be replaced with RSS. I've also suggested a high-quality source re: fake news (to go with the death threats – thanks for adding that!), and made prose suggestions for the lead and the book. I noticed that a number of my review comments were not addressed. Please go over every bullet point above, and for anything that isn't marked with Checked or see below please address the issue, either by making the suggested change or responding there with an indented reply why you feel a change would not be an improvement to the article (or a question or any other comment). Also, though I said some of this was optional, I specifically want to ask you as a matter of article improvement (and to make things easier for me) to please ensure the citation templates have the correct information: obvious errors in dates, authors and publishers invite criticisms as "fake news" (Also, wikilinking the authors, works, and publishers and naming all the references can make verification and assessment easier). Please take your time with all of this, and give me a {{ping|Reidgreg}} when you're finished. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Reidgreg:
Thanks for the review. I know you said to add the individual comments right below what the first point was about but I will be honest I’m finding everything super confusing with all the cross outs and changes. So I will summarize all the changes I made or did not make based of all the comments I gathered that still need to be dealt with. I am also dealing with the article chronologically, so from the lead to the awards section. So it will be easier for both of us to follow. If you have a reply to a comment can you just reference the number of the comment? Thanks much as I’m still new to Wikipedia (I know it says I’ve been here since 2015, but my account was inactive for like 95% of that time) and this structure will help me more.
1. Lead: I shortened the lead again, namely the 2020 report. 2016 and 2018 are in there as that’s what got her famous for the trump reporting and the second for which she won the Pulitzer. I also added the link to the business practice one you listed. I think this is a good size for a lead now.
2. Info Box: I changed the newspapers names to italics. Do you mind if we keep the Canadian citizenship. I say this because even though she’s lived in NY for over two decades and worked in that states that long, she’s from Canada and she has said that defines how she perceives US politics. I think people would assume she’s American otherwise.
3. Early Life: I added a u of c reference to the fact that’s where she got her start in journalism. I think it’s important to not omit that cause I’ve personally seen her speak in Calgary and she’s very adamant that if it were not for the gauntlet she would not have gone into journalism as she clearly did not study it formally. And she repeats this in interviews as well. I also removed Goverment as her major. I kept that she is friends with Naheed cause it’s a rather fun fact, and especially if you’re Canadian like me!
4. WS: I added the reference cbc next to the Windsor Star paragraph for her internship position as you mentioned in the comments.
5. G&M: You’re going to hate this but I just realized where I got all the dates related to her career like the G&M one. Many you can ween from articles like the CJR one saying she was at the WSJ for ten years from an article in 2010, but I saw the exact dates from her LinkedIn profile which I know is a PS. I’m going to remove them but let me know if you think that might be ok in this context or another alternative.
6. WSJ: For the WSJ, the reference CJR says that she had been at the WSJ for ten years before she moved to NYT so the date was assumed there and that’s when I went to her LinkedIn to verify that. And it is 2001. I can remove it if the CJR one isn’t enough. I also changed staff writer to reporter which is what she has been at all her positions. The Paywalled reference has been edited as well. The CJR also mentioned her being a Pulitzer finalist plus the AGO one.
7. NYT: Times Union reference updated. CJR reference updated. NYM reference updated. The TU reference covers her becoming Bureau Chief. However, I just noticed the dates were wrong. It was announced in 2013 (TU article) and she joined in 2014 (NYT bio). Updated to 2014. I rephrased the whole paragraph so now it makes more sense. (Again this was the words of the previous editor so I was confused which is my fault).
8. 2016 Tax story: Added independant source. Fixed NYT reference.
9. 2018 Tax story: Fixed date in reference. Added an independant one as well that mentions the 14,000 word count. I know it’s has been mention in interviews that it is the longest investigative piece by the paper, which is why I added the number. I’m not sure what you mean by the Mother Jones article. Feel free to make that edit yourself if possible.
10. Pulitzer and GP Award: The Pulitzer link works fine for me on mobile and desktop so not sure what’s up. GP citation updated.
11. 2020 Tax story: Renamed references and added author.
12. MSNBC: The video is from 2022, but her articles with MSNBC appear from 2021, and she did mention at a talk I went to it’s 2021 so I know that’s right. Can you suggest another way to verify this? I also modified the reference how you wanted it but it shows error. Can you see what’s up?
13. Lucky Loser: I changed the whole lucky loser section to focus on her and made it much shorter by summarizing the references.
14. Awards: Fixed all of them. Added LLD reference.
15. I actually don’t know what you mean by changing citation template in the general feedback section.
That’s all for now. Thanks much.
lisa Lisha2037 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisha2037: I don't know what to tell you. I said at the very beginning, in my second paragraph under Initial thoughts I use a fair amount of markup in my review; please let me know if you have any difficulty reading it. You could have let me know and I could have tried to accommodate you.

Having an indented series of replies for each individual issue in the review follows standard Wikipedia talk page practices. It acts as a checklist and makes sure that nothing is missed. It also makes it easier for a third editor to come in and follow the discussion (which happens, this is part of the permanent record for the article).

I used strikeouts in some of the text to reflect changes you made to the article. Because you aren't making indented replies, I'm not certain you read my initial comments, and so I struck parts of them which are no longer relevant in hopes of NOT confusing you. (So you can read the initial comment and the part that's still relevant.) If you'd have made indented replies, I wouldn't have done that.

I can tell you that the way you're replying to me is confusing and frustrating for me. I don't always know what you're replying to, and the numbering of the paragraphs doesn't relate to anything. It's a mess, and it seems that you're missing or ignoring many of my review comments, only responding to what you "gathered that still need to be dealt with."

I'm volunteering to help you with this, I'm volunteering a lot of time and effort and I feel as if you aren't respecting that. Based on the speed of your reply, you aren't spending nearly as much time on this review as I am, and you again insist on posting all of your replies at the end which requires me to spend even more time on it. I don't feel that's fair to me, or to the many other editors I could be helping instead of you.

So that's it. I refer you to my earlier comments. If the issues are not addressed within a reasonable amount of time, I will close the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, Ive done a review before and this was never an issue then. I’m open to having another editor to look at this. And do not forget I myself am a volunteer so I’m also dedicating my time to improving this article and learning about Wikipedia’s rules. All the crossings it’s are confusing and the comments are out of order for the article. I clearly number the comments and add the header to let you know which section im referring to. It’s not a long article, pretty short actually, so finding what I am referring to is less confusing if I lay it out chronologically. As I said, if you do not feel like editing it i am open to having another editor. Lisha2037 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I think I’ve gotten feedback that your review of this article isn’t the best. I ask that you either finish the review in a timely manner or leave it up to another editor. Lisha2037 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my last paragraph above, I am waiting on you to address my earlier comments. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please get off this review. I have renominated this article. Multiple people on Wikipedia have commented that you aren’t the best for this. I want another editor to look at this. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: I'm sorry to hear that. An article can't have two open GAN reviews/reviewers, so this one has to be closed before you can nominate the article for a new one (per discussion at WT:GAN). If you are unwilling to work with me on improving the article, the quickest way to get a new review/er would be for you to request here that I fail this GA review. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please fail. Someone has offered to pick it up. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

[edit]

Before closing the review, I feel compelled to note a pattern of disruptive editing on the part of the nominator when they decided to stop cooperating with this review.

The nominator made two edits (edit1, edit2) to the {{GA nominee}} template altering the status, which should only be done by the reviewer. When the first of these was reverted and the nominator alerted that this was improper, they reverted the revert with the edit summary Well then I want you off this review.

Shortly afterwards, the nominator blanked this entire review page (diff).

As was noted in the WT:GAN talk page discussion, these edits to the templates and nomination pages could have resulted in the bot which facilitates the GAN process becoming confused, with unpredictable consequences.

I notified the nominator of the problems with the above edits which they quickly WP:REMOVED from their user talk page (which is within their perview). It was also mentioned in the discussion at WT:GAN. I am not aware of the nominator expressing any regret or acknowledging any wrongdoing.

I'm also going to mention the nominator's comment above that Multiple people on Wikipedia have commented that you aren’t the best for this. I don't feel I have to be the best at this or anything else, but the comment was made a few times in different fora, never with specifics, and I wanted to see if there was any specific criticism. It seemed to be based on comments from two editors in a Teahouse discussion. The first of these called it "an intense review for such a short article" (diff) which another editor interpreted as "a source review ... above and beyond what is required" (diff) which seems to be supported in the first editor's GA review guide statement Offering additional suggestions for improvement is always acceptable. A second Teahouse editor rather verbosely commented that the reviewer (me) should make certain changes directly instead of making them part of the review (diff). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing summary

[edit]

Per the nominator's request that I fail the review, I have closed it early (ie: before the suggested 7-day on-hold period). The attempted collaboration in this review process was found confusing by both the reviewer (myself) and the nominator. There was also confusion in the nominator's one previous GAN, Talk:Ritu Khullar/GA1, in which the reviewer at one point noted: A couple of outstanding points are above. I wasn't sure if you had gone through all my comments and made updates as you saw fit, or whether some are still pending. It seemed that the nominator found talk page formatting cumbersome, which is not an unusual complaint amongst newer editors. My best advice to future reviewers for the nominator would be to only post a small number of comments at a time so as not to overwhelm the nominator. I feel that might be the best hope to achieve a successful collaboration.

As for the review progress, the article did not meet the GA criteria at the time of the review's closure. The checklist at the top gives a quick overview. There may be additional issues. Here are a few specific notes:

  • The article is a BLP and much of it deals with contentious issues regarding a high-profile person, so there is a fair amount of material which needs to be sourced according to the GA criteria.
  • There were a significant number of primary sources, some written by the subject and others connected to the subject. In some cases these are used for contentious material and could be replaced by citations to independent sources already used in the article. I'm going to single out one that might be overlooked: Mother Jones magazine which directly quotes a NYT piece written by the subject. The prose should be adjusted to indicate that the information is 'according to' the primary source – or the citation replaced with a better source.
  • There were errors (mostly typos) in a lot of citations, such as wrong dates and wrong authors, which may be confusing for verification. While the GA criteria seem to indicate that author attribution is only required for direct quotations, I believe having incorrect information in the citation could make it difficult to 'figure out' what the source is.
  • The article lost focus with an entire section devoted to Lucky Loser, a book the subject wrote for which there is a separate Wikipedia article. Much of that section was word-for-word the same as content in the other article. I felt this should be reduced to a tight summary of a couple sentences. There is a suggested rewrite in the review above.
    • If/when the Lucky Loser section is reduced, the resultant uneven sections should be addressed, possibly breaking Career into two subsections at the subject's move to New York.
  • The article lead was too long at three paragraphs and also fragmented as it jumped back-and-forth between topics. It could be made more concise and cohesive as a matter of copyediting. There is a suggested rewrite in the review above.

There's plenty of reason for caution with contentious BLP material, but with a bit of diligence and constructive collaboration the article should be able to meet the criteria. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susanne_Craig/GA1&oldid=1257145829"