Talk:The Yankee/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.

---

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 05:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) at 17:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

General

• The following terms are linked more than twice in the article:
  • Jeremy Bentham

Duplicate link removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Detailed

• in Portland, Maine — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA

Added! Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Yankee was one of the country's first cultural publications → "The Yankee was America's one of the first cultural publications"

I just reworded to make clear we're talking about the US. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• James Brooks was one of John Neal's law interns when Neal was occupied as editor of The Yankee. Highlighting the breadth of its content, Brooks described the periodical as → "James Brooks, one of John Neal's law interns when Neal was occupied as editor of The Yankee, highlighting the breadth of its content, described the periodical as:" (or any other way you like, but merge those two sentences)

Combining these two sentences doesn't seem necessary to me and your suggestion looks less clear to me than how it stands now. What about the way it stands now is unclear or inconsistent with the MOS? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, was just my suggestion. Feel free to ignore. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Chief Justice of Maine John Appleton and Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Albert Pike — try to avoid linking two adjacent words

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Yankee's greatest impact was uplifting new authors through publication and criticism by Neal of their early works — opinion presented as a fact. We'll need attribution as to who considered this.

I see what you're saying. I included this opinion in this way I guess because it felt true to me, but looking at my notes, only one author I read seemed to be making this claim. Thus, I have attributed this opinion in the body and removed it from the lede to give it less prominence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• "if you don't like it, say so privately; and I will quit poetry, and everything also of a literary nature, for I am sick at heart of the business." — does the original source also used emphasis. regardless, this quotation amazed me!

Yes! So humble and distraught a message from so eventually-successful a writer. Quoted with original italics in place. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Various times, where "John Neal" is mentioned, can be replaced by just "Neal"

Done! I also noticed he was Wikilinked twice in the infobox, so I removed the second one. But I did leave his full name when juxtaposed in a footnote with his cousin, Neal Dow, to hopefully be less confusing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• only three members of 300 — either "only three members of three-hundred" or "only 3 members of 300"

I'm going to leave this as-is, per MOS:NUMERAL Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

But the exceptions in that section says: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32". Here, we are sort-of comparing 3 members to rest 300. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point! I went with spelling out both. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• In the January 1, 1829 issue he asserted — I'd argue for the missing MOS:DATECOMMA here, but the breaks the flow ... ; how about "In the issue of January 1, 1829, he asserted"?

I went with "In the first issue of the second volume, he asserted". Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• and suffrage that — completely upto you, though I'd suggest using a colon sign (:)

Agreed. Comma added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Frances Harriet Whipple Green McDougall — that is her common-name?

The texts I read on this refer to her as Frances Harriet Whipple, so I'll use that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• "women are not inferior to men; they are unlike men. They cannot do all that men may do — any more than men may do all that women may do." — Why emphasis?

The italics are in the original quote from Neal. He's making the point that dissimilarity is often conflated with inferiority when taking about men and women. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• "great mass of the American people." — the full-stop should be outside the quotes.

Per MOS:LQ, I'm going to leave that period in place because it is part of the original quotation. The only reason that sentence is broken into two different quotes is so the unquoted "and" can serve a similar purpose as an elipsis. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• "no magazine ever bore more fully the stamp of a personality.", "first substantial sponsorship or praise", "to a remarkable degree ... have stood the trying test of time." — the prose doesn't make it clear who said this quotation.

Good point. The first and third quotations I attributed. the second I reworded to remove the need for a quote. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

• All images are suitable licenced, and have ALT text. Nice! Though it might be worth mentioning when the author of this image died.

Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using this tool

Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Page number for Ref#12: "Nicoll 2002"?

The source links to this unnumbered online version of the article, which is the version I read. Hence, no page number. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#37: Orestano 2012, p. 135–136. — should be 'pp.'

Good catch! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• "New York, New York" — that should be "New York City, New York", I think

"New York, New York" is how I always see it when written out in city, state format. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but our article states that the common name is "New York City". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add City. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• ""The Real Pioneer of Art in this City": Charles Codman and the Rise of Landscape Painting in Portland, Maine" — quote inside quote should take single quotation marks.

Good point. I thought I saw somewhere that I title with quotation marks in it as part of the title ought to be left in as double quotation marks, but I can't find anything in the MOS to support this memory, so I changed to single quotation marks. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, this is the best article I read today. Thanks for your efforts! Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and for taking the time to go through the article. I believe every one of your comments have been addressed. Let me know if you think the article needs any more work before it meets GAN. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy – some replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued attention. The article is better now as a result. I think the comments are all addressed now, but let me know if there's something else. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

All good here; promoting – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (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.