There are a number of assertions here that are clearly opinion, yet it is not at all clear from the way the text is written that they are Gould's opinion. That needs to be made clear. There are also statements of fact here that, being removed from the present, should be either sourced (synthesis sources are commonly used on interviews) or attributed (you may wish to re-read the style guide's remarks on attribution).
There may be some passages that look as if maybe they should be direct quotes, but aren't. Perhaps they're cases where attribution is needed?
I did not undertake source-checking yet, as I judged the observed problems in need of address are too extensive for the reviewer to tackle alone (the ideal being for nearly all problems to be absent before the reviewer starts, leaving the reviewer to pick up the occasional flub).
This style of article turns out to be not the best choice for covering an interview. When possible (and we all know it isn't always possible), straight transcribed interviews, directly quoting the interviewer and interviewee, are preferable because it's much easier to achieve neutrality. The alternative style demonstrated here cannot draw a clean line between describing/summarizing the interview and analyzing it, so it makes neutrality difficult to achieve.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
There are a number of assertions here that are clearly opinion, yet it is not at all clear from the way the text is written that they are Gould's opinion. That needs to be made clear. There are also statements of fact here that, being removed from the present, should be either sourced (synthesis sources are commonly used on interviews) or attributed (you may wish to re-read the style guide's remarks on attribution).
There may be some passages that look as if maybe they should be direct quotes, but aren't. Perhaps they're cases where attribution is needed?
I did not undertake source-checking yet, as I judged the observed problems in need of address are too extensive for the reviewer to tackle alone (the ideal being for nearly all problems to be absent before the reviewer starts, leaving the reviewer to pick up the occasional flub).
This style of article turns out to be not the best choice for covering an interview. When possible (and we all know it isn't always possible), straight transcribed interviews, directly quoting the interviewer and interviewee, are preferable because it's much easier to achieve neutrality. The alternative style demonstrated here cannot draw a clean line between describing/summarizing the interview and analyzing it, so it makes neutrality difficult to achieve.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Unfortunately, due to a ghastly error, I accidentally erased the recording. However, I kept detailed notes. Everything in the article comes from David. It is all his opinion. It is as close to a transcript as I could archive. I could rewrite it as an interview transcript, but it would be a reconstruction. I have tried to make this as clear as possible. There is no analysis or additional facts from me. There are no synthesis sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
(Cultural difference: This is the normal form that an interview would appear in a newspaper or magazine in this country; verbatim Wikinews style interviews are practically unknown, and are restricted to historians like HOPAU. But of course journalists know nothing about NPOV. I thought of the possibility of videoing an interview. This is forbidden at sports events, but would be okay here. The problem is that it would probably be too large to upload.)
Thanks for the explanation; that's good documentation to have. I realize there can be situations where one can't do better (as pointedly acknowledged in my comments). The lesson about the difficulty of neutrality with this format is one we learned with some (wheelchair basketball?) interviews a while back. --Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not usual to have an interview with no synthesis sources listed; routinely an interview has an intro with facts verified by one or more synthesis sources. In this case, I dug this up as a sanity check on the article:
In verifying OR from notes, as here, part of the reviewer's task is to judge whether the notes are sufficient to reliably remind the reporter of any details in the article that aren't explicitly spelled out in the notes. Some kinds of details are easier to recall accurately that others, given a reminder; numbers and exact wording of direct quotes are likely to be problematic. I changed one passage from direct quote to indirect, out of discomfort over the length, as direct quotes are supposed to be word-for-word. I allowed some shorter direct quotes despite some qualms. The point I was most wary of was the four players and six players.
The FB posts cited above are in a somewhat different class, not memory check but sanity check. You should include those at opportunity with an interview.
Sorry to hear about the audio problem.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
In verifying OR from notes, as here, part of the reviewer's task is to judge whether the notes are sufficient to reliably remind the reporter of any details in the article that aren't explicitly spelled out in the notes. Some kinds of details are easier to recall accurately that others, given a reminder; numbers and exact wording of direct quotes are likely to be problematic. I changed one passage from direct quote to indirect, out of discomfort over the length, as direct quotes are supposed to be word-for-word. I allowed some shorter direct quotes despite some qualms. The point I was most wary of was the four players and six players.
The FB posts cited above are in a somewhat different class, not memory check but sanity check. You should include those at opportunity with an interview.
Sorry to hear about the audio problem.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
