# Talk:Street Gang

This review is transcluded from Talk:Street Gang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion 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 June 13, 2013, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
NOTE: Please respond below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed among the individual points, thank you!
Please submit the article to WP:GOCE requests for copyediting and please also post requests to relevant WikiProject talkpages for previously uninvolved copyeditors.
ISBN number should not be in lede/intro sect body text.
Per WP:LEAD, please expand lede/intro sect to adequately summarize the entire contents of the article as a standalone summary.
Redlinks: Michael Davis (writer), Sam Gibbon - not necessary, but would be nice if these could be created at the very least as sourced stubs.
Audio version - would be best to change title to Publication history and expand that to include info if possible on all published versions of the publication.
Background - missing. Please consider creating a Background sect to add descriptive info on for example subjects such as research.
Lede/intro sect - violates WP:LEAD by containing info, with cites, that doesn't appear later in the article. This sect should only be a summary and not have its own separately sourced info. "Published in time for the show's 40th anniversary in 2009, the book developed out of a TV Guide article Davis wrote to commemorate the show's 35th anniversary in 2004.[1] Davis spent five years researching and writing the book.[2]" - all this doesn't appear in the article itself. Part of the first part of this segment belongs in Publication history sect, and the latter for a Background sect.
Reviews - best titled "Reception" or "Critical reception", instead of "Reviews".
Reviews - consider paraphrasing a bit more instead of the large amount of quotations, consider trimming that quote usage down a bit.
2. Factually accurate?:
Four (4) dead links noted in References sect.
Some works are not cited with the correct name of them. Please use WP:CIT templates and follow WP:CITE, example includes The Washington Post, instead of just Washington Post.
"Davis" is cited in References sect without citing the full ref itself. Suggest splitting into "Notes" and "References" sects, and modeling after First Amendment to the United States Constitution or The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
3. Broad in coverage?:
Missing = "See also" sect, consider adding a "See also" sect with 3-5 relevant links.
Missing = "Further reading" sect, consider adding a "Further reading" sect with 4 or so recommendations to the reader for other relevant books and academic scholarship on the subject.
Missing = Portals. Please use {{Portal bar}} to add several relevant portals linked to the bottom of the article.
4. Neutral point of view?:
Could use some copyediting for NPOV.
Quotes removal and/or paraphrasing or trimming would help, as noted, above.
Changing "Reviews" to "Reception" or "Critical reception" would help, as noted, above.
5. Article stability?
Article edit history stable after inspection going back over one month.
Talk page history stable after inspection going back over one month.
6. Images?: One image used, appropriate fair use rationale used on image page.
NOTE: Please respond below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed among the individual points, thank you!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Section 1: Issues addressed to the best of my ability.  You'll notice that in order to fulfill some of your requests, I used some not-so-reliable sources, like Muppet Wiki.  As I've told editors of some of the articles I've reviewed, sometimes you need to resort to these sources to ensure comprehensiveness.  The kind of information you wanted isn't in other more reliable sources.  In other words, sometimes comprehensiveness trumps reference reliability, and I believe that's the case here.  I also recognize that FAC reviewers may not pass this article on that basis, but not all articles have the potential to get there, anyway.  I'd like to retain the redlinks for Davis and Gibbons; it's my understanding that the purpose of redlinks is to encourage new articles.  It's my intention to eventually create those articles myself, if someone else doesn't beat me to it first.  I'll rewrite the lead when I'm finished addressing your other comments, since it's my practice to write the lead last.
Section 2: I believe that I've fixed all the referencing errors.  Cirt, I'll tell you here what I told you in your review of my concurrent FAC: I'd like to retain the sourcing format here.  It's consistent, clear, and (now) accurate.
Section 3: I believe that with the expansions you requested, this article is more comprehensive now.  Added "Further reading" section, but get ready for more repetition.  I don't think that including a portal is necessary here because of the presence of the Sesame Street, which is very extensive and complete, at the bottom of the article.
Section 4: I think that with the copy-editing I've done, mostly to the newly-named "Critical reception", helps with NPOV.  You should know that shortly after I created this article, Michael Davis wrote on my talk page [1] complaining about the negative tone of the article.  Yes, I was mortified, but also honored that he would reach out to me.  (I subsequently asked him to get me and my family on the show's set, but he wasn't able to help me.  Although now that I've reviewed this article, I may write him and again and see if I can exploit his in with Cooney, someone I've always wanted to meet, anyway.  Hmmm.) ;)
Section 6: Should I add an image of the paperback/2nd edition?

Finished addressing comments for now.  I'll go back and work on the lead, and then tell Cirt I'm finished on his talk page.  Thanks for the constructive feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks a bit better. No, Muppet Wiki definitely fails WP:RS, strongly recommend removing it. That's fine about the suggestions from the author, you can feel free to incorporate those suggested sources as well. Referencing: please spell out the months as format: eg: June 16, 2013. No, I wouldn't add another fair use image. Otherwise looks better for the most part. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.  As I state above, if I remove the Muppet Wiki info, this article won't be comprehensive, and I won't be able to add the information about the publication history.  Did you want me to remove it?  I actually did incorporate Davis' suggestions and included some of the more "positive" reviews as he suggested.  (BTW, this wasn't the first time the subject of an article or someone closely associated with it has contacted me with edit requests.  It's pretty funny when it happens, which is only a couple of times.)  Spelled out dates as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Great, much better. Yeah, you've gotta remove Muppet Wiki as it violates WP:RS. That's not a GA Reviewer thing, it's a site policy thing. Have you tried WorldCat for publication info? Or Library of Congress? See templates Template:OCLC and Template:LCCN for more info on those. — Cirt (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've pretty much exhausted all sources.  (I work for a university, so I have access to a library that provides me with said sources.)  And although comprehensiveness isn't a criteria for GAs, it is for FAs.  Sometimes the two policies conflict.  I've seen FAs that sacrifice the RS policy for comprehensiveness, depending upon the topic.  I went ahead and removed the offending content, though, since I also believe that if an editor submits an article for review, she needs to follow the suggestions of the reviewer.  If I do submit this article for FAC, I'll get others' opinion about this issue first.  Thanks again, Cirt. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


### GA passed
Passed as GA. Thanks for such responsiveness to my suggestions, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)