Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1 - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images

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

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

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):  
  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):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  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:  

Referencing & verifiability

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.

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

No edit warring detected. An infrequent vandalism target.

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.

Single image, possibly a selfie, with PD release.

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.

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