Talk:Florence Knoll/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 June 2022 (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.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading over this interesting topic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Awatkins123: I noticed you haven't edited since nominating this article on April 15th. Could you just respond here that you are active and able to respond to comments as needed? I'll give it a week. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Awatkins123: as you don't appear to be currently active on Wikipedia, I will close the review tomorrow. If this is incorrect, please let me know. If you re-nominate the article in the future, let me know and I'd be happy to come back to review it again. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing review without passing due to nominator non-response. Happy to review in the future. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be careful about using theses and dissertations. In general, I'm in favor if they can be shown to have been published/peer reviewed beyond their university, and have been cited by other academics in peer-reviewed articles. Is that the case for the Hofstra source? The Knoll website source isn't independent. I'd recommend keeping it only for the third reference (meat and potatoes) and removing the first two cites, including removing the second referenced sentence ("comprehensive interior designs") The UVM original link 404s; see if there's an updated link we can swap in. The reference could also use some more information; it's not just "profile", it's from an honorary degree granting and has a "last modified" date among other things that can be added.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The Ancestry.com source strikes me as problematic; not only is it not visible unless you have a subscription, it strikes me as original research from a primary source. In addition, Ancestry.com is not generally advisable for use, especially in a GA, per the discussions at WP:RSP. Source 17 (interview transcript) appears to be OR from a primary source document and should probably be removed along with the information it's used to reference.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig does find some apparent copyright violations, but given the timing, I'm inclined to believe the sources copied from Wiki rather than the other way around. Still, if you want to rewrite some material so that the similarities disappear, I would be supportive of that. Provisional pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Two fair use images are acceptable - no other issues. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some captions can be improved: "at Knoll's request" instead of "at the request of Florence Knoll" "introduced Eero" - the verb introduced leads naturally to the question - introduced where? Rephrase to avoid this issue "An example of a paste-up by Knoll" would be an improvement
	7. Overall assessment.

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.