Talk:Susanne Craig

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

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)

Criterion

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:

Review comments

Referencing & verifiability

• ref named "rookie" University of Calgary Top 40 Alumni. I wouldn't call this an unconnected source but should be good for basic fact checking. Used twice:
  • Craig was born in Calgary, Alberta, growing up in its Charleswood neighbourhood, and attended the University of Calgary, graduating in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Government. Does not support any of the underlined material.
  • She was also a summer intern for the Windsor Star in 1991, and after winning the inaugural Edward Goff Penny Memorial Prize for young journalists, she was offered a full-time job as a reporter at the paper in Windsor, Ontario. None of this is supported by the source. The non-underlined part could be covered by the source used for the award in the Awards list (unnamed reference [23] as of this timestamp).

    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. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• unnamed reference Discover Susanne Craig's journey at U of Calgary. Also connected, she's giving a talk at an alumni conference. This piece is dated 13 August 2019, three years after the access date in the citation template (which appears to be a typo). Used once:
  • While at the University of Calgary, she reported for the campus paper The Gauntlet where she got her start in reporting. Does not cover the underlined part. I suggest omitting this as assumed.
  • This source could also be used for her major of political science.

    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. [User:Lisha2037|Lisha2037]] (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• unnamed reference Instagram. Primary source. Used once:
  • She also became friends with fellow student and future Mayor of Calgary Naheed Nenshi. I feel that this is a weakly sourced and perhaps not important enough to include.
• unnamed reference "Former Calgary Herald writer" Calgary Herald. The |publisher= field in {{cite news}} is used incorrectly. It should be |newspaper=Calgary Herald and |publisher=Postmedia Network and in this case, |agency=Postmedia News. (Authorship is to Postmedia News staff writers, with the piece likely carried by multiple Postmedia newspapers.) Used once:
  • Craig began her career as a summer intern for the Calgary Herald in 1990 where she covered various city transit topics and the career of Canada’s first elected senator, Stan Waters. Although she struggled finding work due to a lack of formal education in journalism, her experience at the Herald encouraged her to keep pursuing a career in reporting.
  • This also covers her political science major
• unnamed reference Former Star journalist Susanne Craig named to Order of Canada Windsor Star. This appears to have moved to https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/former-star-journalist-susanne-craig-named-to-order-of-canada . Same newspaper/publisher issue as above, the Windsor Star is also a Postmedia Network publication. There appears to be a typo in the date, which should be 29 December 2023. Try to avoid all-number forms which can be ambiguous. Used once:
  • She then spent four years at The Star where she worked as one of their police reporters and covered the North American Free Trade Agreement and Heinz’s operations in Leamington, Ontario.
• reference "NNA-CCJ-1999" National Newspaper Awards. The citation should be |title=Winners since 1949 |website=National Newspaper Awards |publisher=Canadian Newspaper Association. Used twice:
  • After a one-month contract with The Financial Post, Craig then joined the The Globe and Mail in 1996 in Toronto where she won the National Newspaper Award in Canada (Business – 1999) Source does not cover the underlined parts.
  • Used in Awards list
• Uncited:
  • and also accepted an Honorable Mention Michener Award on behalf of the Globe.
• ref named "timesunion.com" "Times names Susanne Craig as Albany, New York bureau chief" Times Union (Albany). Could use cite news for this instead of cite web, credit the author, and publisher is Hearst Communications. Used twice:
  • She then went on to become a staff writer for the Wall Street Journal in 2001 Not in source.
  • In 2010, she joined The New York Times to continue reporting on Wall Street and was later promoted to bureau chief for coverage of the New York State government. Used in conjunction with two other sources.
• unnamed reference Susanne Craig NYTimes. Primary source. Used once:
  • [Albany bureau chief] where she became the recipient of several Gerald Loeb Awards including one for deadline writing on the resignation of New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso. Additionally, she was the lead journalist on a team that was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize for National Affairs Reporting in relation to coverage of the Lehman Brothers and their role in the financial crisis of 2008. Not in source.
  • Source has that she was raised in Calgary.

Breadth & focus

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.

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. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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 lead has been modified and shortened with more focus on Craig. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Stability

No edit warring detected. An infrequent vandalism target.

Prose

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.

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. Lisha2037 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Media

Single image, possibly a selfie, with PD release.

Other areas to improve

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.

General discussion

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)

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)

@Lisha2037: Are you done? Have you made all of your changes and are satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria? I'm confused because at the top of this you wrote "I am currently working on your comments" but just above the signature you wrote "That is all for now", and it's all a single post with the same timestamp. So are you working or are you done? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I was assuming you would have more comments cause you said you only reviewed the first 8 sources. So I have worked on the current comments you made but will work more once you have more. Lisha2037 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037: Okay. (You are finished.) I know this isn't your first time at GAN but maybe I have to be very clear here. When you nominate an article at GAN, you aren't just nominating your contributions to the article but the entire article. The nomination instructions (WP:GAN/I#N1) state Ensure that the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article ... Then check the article against the good article criteria and make any improvements that you think are necessary. I felt that the article had a lot of problems and that the nomination was premature. I suggested that you give the article a good all-around check with particular attention to sourcing. I may be going a bit tougher on you than the reviewers of your previous GANs, but there are BLP issues here and I feel that any article even peripherally addressing the former reality TV personality needs to be bulletproof against vandalism and disinformation. So, before I proceed with the review, I would like to ask for your assurance that you have checked everything and that you are confident it meets the GA criteria. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi yes. I believe it does. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In the edit previous to this one, I copied your comments from the numbered paragraphs above and pasted them to follow the review comments they are in response to. Otherwise, it will be difficult to follow if we have to keep scrolling up and down as this review gets longer. I'm going to get back to the review now and will ping you when I'm finished. Please do not edit the article while I'm reviewing, thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)