Talk:Reportedly haunted locations in Washington, D.C.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reportedly haunted locations in Washington, D.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   You'll not need the citations in the lead, and you definitely don't need to use each of them twice in the lead. Just repeat that information in the article body and it doesn't need a citation in the lead.
   In general I don't know if I like the way this is worded. Yes, it's about conjecture and should probably be treated as such, but at the same time, this creates a lot of weasel words. I'm wondering if it might be alright to report these sightings and legends as one would with facts, with some form of disclaimer or the like (not a notice or hatnote or something, but a sentence or two in the lead which is then repeated before the first section begins properly). Might ask for a second opinion on this.
   " Maureen Reagan and her husband" - Maureen Reagan's been married three times, which husband is this?
   "Her spectre is allegedly seen crumpled..." - US topic, so use "specter". The word "spectre" is used elsewhere (I count 10 instances) but that's where I noticed it first.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Honestly I'm thinking this might actually work as several shorter articles, or failing that, with lower-level headings to break up long sections about specific buildings, as the sections are quite long as they are.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Several refs need to be split up. As it is there's a few (refs 16, 66, 68 for example) which cite multiple sources. One source per ref and more citations made is cleaner - if this provides too many inline citations per point, then trim the lesser ones by reliability first, and by accessibility second.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is okay. Goes into a lot of historical detail but this is balanced out by the details always being relevant to what's being discussed.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Never thought I'd say this, but it's too neutral. As I've mentioned about, the way this is carefully treated to maintain neutrality has led to a lot of weasel words loading the article, though not in a malicious or underhanded manner - they simply seem too clunky and reduce the flow of prose. I'm in favour of allowing the leeway to remove a lot of this language, but I'm going to request a second opinion on the matter to be sure, as I could easily be wrong. Grand to others, so grand to me then.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History is stable and uncontroversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are plentiful but not too much given the article's length; they're all from Commons so that's all hunky dory.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I want to ask for a second opinion on the prose, but there's a few other fixes that'll need done in the meantime as well. Most pressing is the clustered references, although keeping the spelling consistent with the region (US English here) is also important.

Comments from Tim riley The nominator, with whom I have dealt on several earlier GANs, has asked me to add my comments in view of the request for a second opinion.

I entirely agree with Grapple X about:

• Citations in the lead
• Multiple referencing – you can always bundle them (e.g. <ref>Smith, p. 45; Jones, p. 50; and Brown, p. 100</ref>) which is easier on the reader's eye.
• Breaking up the sections with lower-level headings
• US spellings – I also noticed three other English spellings: signalling – signaling; duelled – dueled; and quarrelled – quarreled

Dr B has worked wonders with the referencing and the other, lesser points, above. I am now more than happy to say that in my view this article is thoroughly worthy of promotion to GA. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, the prose per se seems fine to me, and of GA standard. I take Grapple X's point at (4) above, but I think you'd need to be very careful in pruning "may be"s, "reportedly"s and "said to"s. I think they're mostly needed, and as long as each one is backed with a citation, which as far as I can see it is, I'd recommend keeping them.

Happy to comment further if I've missed anything. – Tim riley (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Then if I'm the only one worried about the prose style then I can let it go. Just the other points to be addressed then. GRAPPLE X 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum
I entirely agree with the comments about multiple referencing, which is rather distracting from what is by and large a nicely written and engaging article. I do think the lead is entirely inadequate as a summary of this article though. I think the prose style is fine for this type of article, but it's not deployed consistently. For instance, the White House section states baldly that "Household staff in the Taft administration even observed her walking through walls", no hint of claimed to have seen her or similar. I do also see quite a few prose issues I think ought to be fixed even for GA. I haven't read through the entire article, but here are a few examples that caught my eye:

Agreed, I've expanded the lead to try to give a summary of the haunted locations and apparitions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Capitol

"It has also been seen by night watchmen and members of the Capitol Police". Obviously, as we were told in the preceding sentence that a night watchman shot at it in 1862.

Changed to "by other" watchmen.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitol Hill

• "These stories related how, after his death, the spirit of 'Old Howard' came back to haunt his old home". They still do, obviously.

reworded/merged into one sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Other presidents

• The very first sentence of this section starts off "Other Presidents", not "Other presidents".

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• "White House seamstress Lillian Rogers Parks said she was sewing in the Queen's Bedroom and felt a presence, cold air, and then a hand on the back of her chair.[33] She quickly left the room, and for the rest of her time in the White House she refused to enter the Queens' Bedroom without at least one other person accompanying her." Which is it?

It is the Queen's Bedroom. I've reworded it to say she refused to enter the room again without somebody accompanying her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-residents

• "... he heard a ghostly whisper which said ..." Whispers don't say anything.

changed to a faint voice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Ssilvers

• I think the WP:LEAD is too short to give an adequate overview of this substantial article. See if you can give a little more summary, in the Lead, of the most important points in the article.
• Re: the prose, instead of using "may", try reputedly, reportedly, said to be, thought to be, x reported that, y wrote that, z claimed that.... ---- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I believe I have now addressed all of the concerns. If anybody spots any outstanding inconsistency in the Amercan vs British spelling please change it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About citations in the lead

The Missing Manual agrees that citations in the lead are usually not warranted. The exceptions (which apply here) are controversial statements and statements about living people. Shouldn't the factual claims about the A&E documentary and the Dan Brown novel be cited under this rule? - Tim1965 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that "X wrote about Y" is something we'd call controversial, especially if it's elaborated on later in the article. If it was "Dan Brown eats babies", then yeah I'd expect it to be cited at every occurrence, but simply saying that he wrote a book about ghosts isn't really worth the exception. GRAPPLE X 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

Seems good to go by me. I'm going to pass this one as a good article. Well done! GRAPPLE X 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Grapple, Tim, Malleus and Silvers for your constructive comments which led to an improvement of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Reportedly haunted locations in the District of Columbia → Reportedly haunted locations in Washington, D.C. – According to this year-old MoS discussion, the loose consensus was that article titles about the U.S. capital should use "Washington, D.C." when referring to it as a place and "District of Columbia" when referring to it as a legal entity. In the case of this article, we're discussing the capital as a place, so it should be moved. Thrakkx (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Disagree, do not move - The final period in "Washington, D.C." disrupts URLs. There's a reason why many articles no longer use it, and it has to do with URLs rather than legal entity vs. geographic place. In the main body of text, I agree with the distinction. But not in article names. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  And so that's why the main article title is "District of Columbia" and not Washington, D.C., and why every category ends with "Washington, D.C.", right? I have not seen this argument before and there seems to be no basis for it, given that most articles about Washington, D.C., end with "Washington, D.C." (and all that don't have a redirect that do). Thrakkx (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, and per the main article for Washington, D.C. being Washington, D.C. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per WP:TITLECON (specifically, WP:CONSUB), as invoked by Randy Kryn. BD2412 T 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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.