Talk:Tony Nader/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 21:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting; I'll do a review shortly. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:04, 19 August 2012 (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.	The prose seems good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The main problem here is the lead, which doesn't really summarise the entire article. The article also lacks breadth, which I think has contributed to this problem.
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.	Seems alright.
	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).	You've said that he is married and has children, but no sources is provided for this. That really needs referencing, especially as this is about a living person.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This seems to be the main issue. You've covered his academic and professional life well, but there is much more you could talk about. At the very least, I think this needs something on his early & personal life, something on his supporters, something on his critics, maybe his influences too.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	That seems alright.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't think that this is neutral enough for GA at the moment. The article goes into a lot of detail about his successes without reporting any of his critics.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems to be.
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.	Seems good.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article does not pass our good article criteria at this time. I have outlined the main issues above, which should not take took long to resolve. Once those are dealt with, try nominating it again. Let me know if you have any questions.

Response to GA review

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I have some comments and questions for you that will help me to improve the article:

• 'MOS Lead--The main problem here is the lead, which doesn't really summarise the entire article.
  • Can you please specify which section(s) or major points in the body of the article are not summarized in the lead? Also please note that WP:LEAD says to summarize and the lead is already almost 20% of the size of the body of the article. (lead = 142 words and body = 801 words) I am happy to add more to the lead if there are major points I have missed but we don't want to go too big as its just a summary and it should not contain details. Do you want me to mention his speaking tour? His 'weight in gold' award? What his books are about? Please let me know. Thanks.
• MOS Lead--The article also lacks breadth, which I think has contributed to this problem.
  • This is confusing. Are you saying that you failed the lead because it doesn't summarize content that should be in the current article, but isn't?
• Verifiable--You've said that he is married and has children, but no sources is provided for this. That really needs referencing, especially as this is about a living person
  • Good point, I have removed that un-sourced text, which has been 'tagged citation needed' since April 2012. I cannot find any reliable sources that support it.
• Breadth of Coverage--This seems to be the main issue.
  • Oh... I thought you said the lead was the main issue, but OK.
• Breadth of Coverage--You've covered his academic and professional life well
  • Thank you :-)
• Breadth of Coverage--but there is much more you could talk about. At the very least, I think this needs something on his early & personal life,
  • I have carefully searched Google News and Google Books and used all available sources in the article. I cannot find any info on his early (pre-education) or personal life. Are you aware of any such sources?
• Breadth of Coverage--something on his supporters, something on his critics, maybe his influences too.
  • I agree it would be nice to have more info, but my hands are tied since Wiki summarizes available sources and they do not give any info about his supporters, critics. If you can find, or are aware of sources that contain this kind of info, I would be happy to add the info therein.
• Neutrality--I don't think that this is neutral enough for GA at the moment. The article goes into a lot of detail about his successes without reporting any of his critics.
  • But above you say it needs "something on his supporters", now you say: "the article goes into a lot of detail about his successes" and is therefore non-neutral. This is confusing. Also, I would point out that I am not aware or anything in WP:NPOV that says that criticism is required in an article for it be neutrally written (though it should be included if reported in reliable sources). What WP:NPOV does say is: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately." This includes: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"... "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts"... "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion".... "Prefer nonjudgmental language"...."Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone"... "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". If there are specific passages that you feel are worded in a biased way, please let me know so that I can reword them in to a more "disinterested tone".

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions and comments above. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take those in order:

• You might be right on the account of the lead; I think the main issue here was breadth of coverage and it came across as an insufficient lead. Technically, the lead should probably pass (and that was my mistake), but will of course need expanding once the article itself is expanded.
• The breadth really is the main issue (I tend to say "main issue" too much, I fear). I don't know any sources about his personal life myself, but perhaps there are some scholarly references, or resources that are not available on Google Books? I am not quite sure what you mean regarding wiki summaries, but it would be good if you could find some further information about those things. For an an article about this kind of person, something on his critics, supporters and influences is probably necessary for the article to be broad enough in coverage (for GA this doesn't need to be much, just some mention of it).
• The lack of neutrality comes from the fact that you've not mentioned anyone who disagrees with or has criticised him. The article does need information on his supporters too; it will be neutral if you present his supports and critics neutrally. NPOV requires balance, which is not achieved if there's nothing on his critics or supporters (if there really is nothing in the sources on Nader, see what there is on the movement he leads).

I hope that helps. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions and to clarify your review. I don't agree with your assessment that the article lacks neutrality because it doesn't mention his supporters and/or critics and I'm not sure bringing in off topic info is the answer. However, I respect your opinion and your review of the article. Thanks again,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

After looking back at the article's sources, I was able to locate some criticism of the subject and have added it here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Parking text: Source quote needed

• and was mentioned in a 1991 Journal of the American Medical Association article that accused his associates of deceptive marketing practices.

The above text was tagged with a quotation needed template in April 2012. The text is disparaging and alludes to guilt by association. Per WP:BLP I am parking it here until the source can be accessed and a quote provided so we may ascertain if the content in the source meets WP:BLP standards for inclusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)