Talk:The Dougy Center/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 09:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I'm aware of and I've read the COI notice that was posted to the article's talk page.

I had already read the article and looked it over and decided what I was going to say in my GA Review, before even happening to look at the article talk page and see that post -- so that is a good thing. :)

— Cirt (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:The Dougy Center logo.gif = image hosted locally here on en.wikipedia, appropriate fair use rationale on image page. Checks out okay.
File:The Dougy Center (2014) - 1.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, good licensing and information on image page. Image review is good.
File:The Dougy Center, Portland, Oregon (2013) - 09.JPG = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, even if there were any original copyright of the creator of that object, it would likely qualify as commons:Template:PD-text, anyways. Image review is good.
File:Flag of Oregon.svg = public domain on Commons. Image review is good.

— Cirt (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stability assessment

Upon inspection of article edit history = I see only constructive edit history going back to 2014.
Looking over talk page, same thing, no issues here with stability.

Stability assessment is fine, next on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond, below this entire GA review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggest moving Funding into Mission and model sect.
Recommend moving Events into History sect.
Could have a brief mention somewhere about the Kübler-Ross model and the five stages of grief.
Very nicely done on the WP:LEAD sect, but could add some Reception info, after expansion, see below on that issue.
Any more info on the Arson investigation? Suspects? Motivation? As the reader I'm left shocked and wondering about possible motivation for this, why would someone do such a thing, particularly to this type of organization?
History should probably be moved above Mission and model sect.
Perhaps another image from commons:Category:The Dougy Center might be nice, maybe an interior view.
Particularly on this type of topic, would be nice to have a corresponding brief article on the Simple Wikipedia.

2. Verifiable?: Strongly recommend using archivedate= and archiveurl= to increase durability of cites with Internet Archive.

3. Broad in coverage?: MISSING: Suggest adding section, Reception, with analysis of The Dougy Center from secondary sources. Has the organization won any awards? Been subject of praise from notable people, politicians? Criticism? Were noteworthy people quoted in the press with saying things about the organization during the 2013 celebration? Press from the 2010 Oregon Public Broadcasting event? This could all be covered in a Reception or Commentary or Analysis sect.

4. Neutral point of view?: See MISSING info, as noted, above.

5. Stable? No issues here, per above review.

6. Images?: No issues here, per above review.

#NOTE: Please respond, below this entire GA review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your time and assistance.[reply]

Re: #2 and #3. I'd like to disagree and explain why. It seems, at least for this organization, events and fundraising go hand-in-hand. I am not really sure how I would even separate events vs. fundraising because the events listed are for the purpose of raising funds. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then a general bit about how and where funding comes from in the Mission sect, and then just move all the rest of that sect into History. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like so? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant more so integrate the Events info chronologically into the History sect. — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would argue that the current subsection makes for better flow and organization. To follow chronologically strictly would place a variety of fundraising events in between when the organization's main building was destroyed by arson and then rebuilt would disturb the flow of this major event in the org's history. Unless you feel strongly otherwise, I would keep the current layout. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, yes, I do feel strongly because then you can integrate into the chronological history why the funding events were needed, right after the arson, to help rebuild. — Cirt (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        But I don't want to suggest that these events were specifically to raise money for a new building. The organization has events as part of its annual fundraising efforts, as do most organizations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay then just dry stated as matter-of-fact as possible, in a separate paragraph, but in that History sect, in chronological order. "At its next annual fundraising event..." eg. — Cirt (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't get myself to include info about the "Cookies with Cookie Monster" and other random events in between the destruction and reconstruction of the center's main building. I think it just disturbs the flow too much. So I did some reshuffling. Does this work for you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's fantastic, well done! — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #4. Is this still the case even if the Dougy Center does not use the Kübler-Ross model? In fact, I believe the organization is skeptical of the model. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a brief mention next to the person, herself, after she's first mentioned in the body of the article. IFF the organization is skeptical, that would be noteworthy to add to the article, as well. — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Let me know if you have better/different wording in mind. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - MUCH BETTER, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #6. Great questions, for which I cannot provide answers. My understanding, based on research and the many sources used to construct the article and from personal knowledge, is that the arsonist was never identified and it is believed to be a random act of destruction. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah okay something about that could be added to the article then. — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article says the arsonist was unidentified, which implies no suspect was ever charged. My research leads me to believe the building was destroyed, no one was caught, and the organization immediately began focusing on rebuilding. I think the article reflects this appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - IFF there is anything stating in secondary sources a little bit more about how no one was charged, caught, etc, that could be stated at least a little bit more explicitly in the article. Were there any other arsons at the time near the area? — Cirt (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the news source, the organization's E.D. says a few fires were started previously. I added this bit to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #7. I disagree, especially since one of the former sections now exists as a subsection. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #8. I could not agree more. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #9. I agree, but I'm afraid I do not have the capacity to commit to that project at this time. I have several Good article reviews to address and many other Wikipedia-related works in progress (online and offline). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite easy. Just use the lede intro sect of this article. That's it. No other body text need be there. Then just try to simplify the wording a bit. Then add some sources so at least those factual assertions are cited. Then you're done! :) — Cirt (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I don't want to spend time on that project at this time and I hopefully that will not be held against this article being promoted to GA status at English Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reception. I did not come across any criticism, which anyone is more than welcome to challenge me on if they feel COI impairs my judgement. I did find this source about the E.D. winning an award, but it is a press release so I don't know if that is appropriate to include. Similarly, the new building's architecture firm was awarded a "2014 Gold Nugget Award of Merit", but this appears on their website, so I am not sure if it is appropriate to include. Is this worth mentioning? (Quote: "The Awards Ceremony concluded with a surprise charitable donation from the winning firm of the People’s Choice Award to The Dougy Center, the project client of the Against All Odds Award.") And what about this? That's all I can find. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as a third-party observer I can say it's okay to add those facts, just keep it very concise and matter-of-fact. I'm quite surprised no one said any public statements of note, ever, like during those fundraising events, or anything like that? — Cirt (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what I can for a Reception section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks good. Strongly recommend using archivedate= and archiveurl= to increase durability of cites with Internet Archive. Hopefully in the future as time progresses, there will be even more secondary source coverage of this topic and therefore more to add to Reception sect. Thank you very much to Another Believer for being so polite and responsive to my comments. Passed as GA. — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thank you for your willingness to help. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:36, 5 October 2015 (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.