Talk:The Pennsylvania Society

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

• General:
  • Is there meant to be two external links sections? Or do you mean for the first one to be a "further reading" section? If it's not meant to be a further reading section, they need to be combined.

• • Are we covering the Society? Or the event? If we're truly covering both together (which makes sense) we need to hear more about significant events in the past. We stop talking about history in 1903, basically, until we reach 2003 and afterwards. This is a big glaring gap in coverage. Surely someone important attended. Who were the political appointees made in the past? Was it ever involved in a scandal? As the article stands right now, it's got a severe case of WP:Recentism
  • Who is the leadership/etc of the society? Any notable leaders of the society in the past? I see the quote about Fricks and Carnegies and Pews, were they involved in the society in the past? Who else of historical note?
• Lead:
  • Give a date for the "Gilded Age" as you don't want your readers to have to click away from your article.
• Origins:
  • "The tradition for Pennsylvania's political and business retreat dates to 1899.." is awkward, suggest rewording somewhat.
• This is going to be a lot of work to bring up to a standard that is "broad in its coverage" which is one of the standards of the GA criteria. It's entirely too focused on recent (within the last 6 years) events, and does not give any coverage at all to historical development and events from 1903 to about 2003. I'm not going to fail the article right now, but I cannot pass it with such a glaring ommission, so I'm putting it on hold. As long as work is being done, I don't have a problem extending the hold past the normal 7 days, but progress does need to be made.
  • How is this going? I'm not seeing much work being done here...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Since I've heard nothing in almost two days after my last note here, I'm failing this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2020

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The Pennsylvania Society → Pennsylvania Society – WP:THE. PPEMES (talk) 11:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. feminist (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not an expert on this topic but a quick perusal of sources seems to show that the guildeine in WP:THE about "When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well" applies. Sources seem to almost always include "the". (Although a lot of refs in this article don't seem to have URL links for newspaper articles, alas...) SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Sources (including primary sources) often include "the", in lower case, which tends to indicate that the Society does not regard the "The" as an integral part of its name. e.g. Year Book of the Pennsylvania Society of New York, although that may just be because of house style. There are uses of e.g. "a Pennsylvania Society dinner", so "The" is not mandatory. But the official name does seem to include the "The". 94.21.238.148 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • See WP:OFFICIALNAME. It's irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

...not at all. OFFICIALNAME refers to WP:COMMONNAME, so the question is "is the name without 'The' a common name, moreso than the official name?" same editor as IP above 94.21.219.87 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE: If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name, which is the case based on the preponderance of sources. This also clearly agrees with the name as stated by the organization itself, so the burden of a different COMMONNAME would have to be higher, and its clearly not met that. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose clearly the move would reduce intelligibility. WP:CRITERIA WP:THE In ictu oculi (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2020 (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.