Jump to content

Talk:Misty Copeland/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Many of the wordings and sentence orderings aren't comfortable. For example, in the lead a sentence about ABT separates sentences about Kimball and Jackie Robinson. Likewise, in the Custody case section, the timeline goes from 98 to 2000 and back to 98. Likewise, Bartell has been named, but then "the lawyer who delivered her to the police station filed emancipation papers."
    I will respond to any specific complaints.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    What is "cultural pressure"?
    I have reworked the sentence. I hope it is in better context now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's a large amount of non-ballet info here. Reading this article, I'd like to know more about her career; I think the article does a good job of covering peripheral issues... but perhaps to the extent of obscuring her career.
    In truth, I am not knowledgeable enough about ballet to glean anything more about her ballet career from the numerous NYT articles cited. However, the most interesting part of her ballet career is the early portion that is in the separate custody case section. Are you not counting this part of the article as part of her career. If you exclude that, there is are still about 4500 characters of text on her ballet career alone. I have entire Good Articles with less text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    "As an African-American woman, she is an extremely rare talent in her field,[22] and although she has been shielded from several issues, she endures the difficulties of cultural isolation as the second African-American ABT soloist ballerina." and "She also feels that since the ballerina is the focus of the ballet her role as a trail-blazing performer and role model has extra significance." seem to be praising her and representing her view more than I would expect from an encyclopedia article. Don't say what she feels, say what she's been quoted as saying. Do be more specific about what cultural isolation is, and how it applies to her specifially.
    Actually, I think this is very subtly worded compared to Jackie Robinson's article, which explicitly says "players called Jackie a "nigger" from their dugout, and yelled that he should "go back to the cotton fields." This is because the primary sources address the issues in a subtle and refined way. We don't know what specific things she is being shielded from. They could be calling her a Dancing monkey or some things much worse behind her back (or even under their breath or directly to her face). We don't know. They could be discriminating against her in others ways. All we have are the subtle primary references and there is not much more we can say.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Are there truly no free images of her?
    ABT has emailed me two great images, but has not been able to provide proper licensing for them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    You've got an interesting article here. It's got plenty of references, but I think it needs copyediting before it's truly a good article. I find that sometimes I need a separate set of eyes to copyedit my articles after I've poured myself into referencing them properly, and I think you're likely in the same boat here. ON HOLD for at least a week for you to look over the issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very open to your editorial suggestions, if you have specific ones. It is quite normal to post a listing of such suggestions during the hold process.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10/2 re-review

[edit]

In an effort to provide specific suggestions, here are a set of items for copyediting:

There are probably more than these--that is what I have time to go through in detail right now. I've essentially reconfirmed my impression that comprehensive copyediting is needed here. I think you have everything it takes to have a great article, but the indicated issues (and similar ones) are currently holding it back. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10/6 re-review

[edit]

Based on the extensive copyediting needed, I've just gone ahead and done it. I've included a couple of tags, but I'm pretty sure that I've correctly refactored everything that I didn't tag. Feel free to correct anything I've boogered up.

However, this disqualifies me as a reviewer, so I'm marking this as needing a second opinion. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added two tags. The first, which is at paragraph two of the first section of the main body, is without explanation in the secondary source. It is not clear to me if this is the Spotlight Awards or another contest. The other one seems to be requesting an explanation of the law beyond what is in the given secondary source. This may or may not be a reasonable request, but I do not know California law and do not know that I should be required to for a GA on this topic. I think the second tag should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Reviewer

[edit]

Hi! I'll look over this article to give a second opinion, and should have the full review soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very nice article. The issues above are minor, and so it shouldn't take that much work for this article to be in a place to be promoted to GA. Drop me a note here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look good at all. She is a real talent and deserves a better effort than what was given in this article. Someone who knows at least something about ballet needs to go over this and fix errors and more research is needed. Gingermint (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misty_Copeland/GA1&oldid=700856776"