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.
Neutrality: Looking at the history, the article has suffered from lots of
WP:PROMOTIONAL content. While the nominator has tried to clean up such issues, I still see lots of non-neutral wording to the point where this article
reads like a CV. Examples include:
“Human rights activist” (that’s not a vio of NPOV issue in itself, but it’s not verified from the cited sources)
“photographed award-winning annual reports”
“used her international public platform”
“Following this milestone”
“raise awareness about these issues and to urge people to get involved through direct action” (we are not the subject’s PR manager)
long list of the subject’s exhibitions
Sources: Wayyyy too many primary sources. This amount of primary sources contributes to the above NPOV issues.
Plagiarism/copyright: Earwig is picking up a 50% match from the subject’s book publisher (non-quoted material). And over a 30% match from ref 1. That’s not acceptable. This alone is grounds for a quick fail.
@
48JCL, normally yes, but as part of the July Backlog drive, I’m letting a more experienced reviewer concur with my evaluation first before I close it.
Dr. Swag Lord (
talk)
20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I went and looked at the article before checking this review and had the same first bad taste in my mouth at "internationally recognized". This is a quickfail, and it's not even close.
This is nominator
Gumballhead1of2's first visit to GAN, so I'd like to further dissect some of the issues that leave this page very far from meeting multiple Good Article criteria:
The sourcing is overwhelmingly primary. There is an image cited as a source for some reason, alongside multiple links to IMDb. There are some secondary sources that look promising, including a 1997 feature in the Los Angeles Times, a 2010 book review in The Independent, and coverage of her exhibitions in different cities. I encourage the nominator to trade up to reliable sources in news media, books, and scholarly literature (which I suspect might exist). While they do not have 10+ edits in the last month, if they were to do so, they would qualify for
Wikipedia Library access, which would help in procuring the needed higher-quality sourcing.
The impact of promotional editing is still reflected in the prose. It's puffier than a puff pastry, and much of its language is not encyclopedic. If you've come from a PR background, as I suspect, this is going to be an adjustment for you. Trading up in sourcing will also help you avoid the copyvio issue.
Image licensing. A
VRT ticket, like the one Gluckstein provided for her image, needs to be supplied for the book cover. I do not know if Gluckstein, and not her publisher, would have authority to create that ticket.
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.