Talk:Whale tail/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have now completed by review, which is below in three parts:

1. "an "apparent intersections" - an is singular, and intersections is plural. This should be fixed.
2. Reference 11 seems like it would work better as part of the prose of the article.
3. "Cartner-Morley" - is this the full name or just the last name?
4. "muffin top" - what is this?

GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All issues addressed, but the 2nd one. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Further review:

• "The whale tail went mainstream" - "went mainstream" doesn't sem encyclopedic. Perhaps "became a mainstream fashion trend"?

Copy fixed.

• "the high streets" - again, this seems more like slang than encyclopedic prose

Wikified the fashion term "high street" to serve encyclopedic purpose, along with the other fashion term "street level".

• The "In the mainstream" section seems strangely organized, as if it is a group of statements thrown together rather than a section written as a cohesive and organized unit. For example, Britney Spears is discussed in paragraphs one, three, and four. This seems disjointed.

Not disjointed anymore. The three paragraphs describe (a) general happenings; (b) celebrities; (c) conjectures.

• "The word was selected" - "whale tail" is two words, although I don't dispute that it was named "most creative word". I'm not quite sure how best to deal with this, though.

I'd go by the experts' decision here, which is represented by American Dialect Society here.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's awkward introducing the sentence with "the word". Perhaps just ""Whale tail" was selected..."

• "winning by 44 votes" - it won with, not by 44 votes, although it should also be noted that there was a run-off with "muffin top" in which "whale tail" received 56 votes.

Copy fixed.

• In the Word of the Year article, it mentions that an alternate term is "longhorn", which is not mentioned in this article.

Couldn't find "longhorn". It's not on that article. Therefore, I'm letting it pass.

It's definitely there. "WINNER whale tail: the appearance of thong or g-string underwear above the waistband of pants, shorts, or a skirt. Also known as a longhorn."

Nope. Not on the word of the year article, though I did manage to find it finally at an external webpage, and have incorporated the information. Cheers.

• "two Louisiana towns, Delcambre (a fine of $615 or up to six months in jail) and Opelousas, wearing low slung pants that reveal buttock cleavage or undergarments is considered a misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine and up to 6 months in prison" - this seems contradictory - is the $500 fine just in Opelousas? This sentence needs to be rewritten.

Copy fixed.

• This article is very focused on the United States. Is information available about anywhere else in the world? Currently, I'm not convinced that it meets the GA requirement for breadth of coverage.

The whale tail is largely a US phenomenon, if judged by the sources available. Therefore, it would remain largely US-centric, no matter how broad a coverage is attempted.

I'd also like to mention that the coverage, with consideration given to notability and sourcing, includes UK very well. India has been covered, too. But, I take your point. If there are significant coverage available, it shouldn't take more than a day or two to incorporate some coverage of other parts of the world as well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention a couple of other countries, but most of it (and all of the legal disputes section) are focused on the United States. It may not have spread to many other countries. Canada's fashion tends to be heavily influced by the United States, though. Was there any mention of it there (regarding popularity or legal issues)?

The legal dispute is all about the US. So far no mainstream media has been found to quote a legal controversy anywhere else on earth. I probably wouldn't be able to incorporate the material that doesn't exist. I am searching for other stuff. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Final sections:

• The caption for the image of the whale's tail (100B2051.jpg) has a long caption that would work better as part of the article's prose. Perhaps this could go in the "Other whale tails" section.

Information shifted to the body of section.

• "the E-program" - what is this?

E-programa nd H-program wikified to provide context.

• "80% of the Carrera was rehashed" - this is confusing, which might be due to the odd word choice of "rehashed"

Copy fixed.

• The information about whaletail.com might work better in one of the sections that describes the fashion trend rather than the other uses section.

Wanted to underplay it a bit. Because it may constitute somewhat sensitive material (the same reasoning for keeping the other website in the footnote).

• Many of the references need some work. I believe that they should be formatted using Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book. Currently, the references are missing a lot of important information.
• References 52 and 53 (The Situation Room and Newsroom are identical and should be combined.
• A few of the urls in the references have changed and should be updated. This can be done by clicking on the current link, copying the address that it takes you to, and pasting that url over the old one. This applies to #24 (Hang up your hipsters), #20 (So long to the thong as women reject the chav look for big pants), #34 (One-piece in our time), #27 (Backless underwear?), and #69 (Armed with high ideals, Joseph Pawlick enforces a mandate for change at Salinas High--whether teachers, students and parents want it or not).

Identical refs have been combined. Changed urls have been updated. Citation templates for news, journal and web have been used. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few of the online references are still missing access dates. Some of them are also still missing information. Each needs to have at least a title, url, publisher/work, and accessdate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I will place this nomination on hold to allow for these changes to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have plced this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Queries

• After almost five days of intense search, there seems to be no citably credible information on Whale Tails in other countries, not even Canada. I believe that scores for the "broad coverage" required for GAs, though probably not for "comprehensiveness" required for FAs. Am I correct in that assumption?
• I have fixed all the citations according to the convention, though the GA criteria doesn't require so. I am afraid that a few may have slipped out. Would you help by pointing those refs out, and stating what needs to be done?

I am liking it much better now. Please, let me know what more needs to be done. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is looking much better. The only thing remaining is the reference formatting. Because so many of them are not formatted with a template, information is missing. For example, #1 is good, #2 is awkwardly formatted because it isn't using the cite book template, #3 isn't formatted and it is missing a page number, #4 isn't formatted and doesn't have a year of publication or a page number, #5 is good, #6 isn't formatted, #7 isn't formatted, #8 is good, #9 is good, and #10 is missing an access date. I did a quick look through and fixed a few, but there were still quite a few that needed work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am working on the citation format, and using the templates. Hopefully it will be resolved quickly. But, one thing got me just a bit curious (hope you don't mind). I have gone through Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Only the last one recommends a typical format, while the rest doesn't even mention it. Is it really a requirement? Or it should be a requirement, and thus probably should also be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Wikipedia:Citing sources mentions this. It states that "Each article should use the same method throughout" and repeats this with a requirement of being "internally consistent". Since the majority of the references in this article are formatted with templates, the rest should be as well. Part of this is also so that information is not omitted, as some of the sources are missing information (such as the access date, which is important because information on the internet can change rapidly). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Two more questions:

• Can you keep it on hold till Thursday? I am confident that I can get all the citatiosn formatted to a satisfactory level.
• Not all the online sources, no matter how mainstream, provides the same type of information for their reports and commentary. Therefore, it is an absolute fact that not all the citations can possibly have the same kind of information (accessdate definitely isn't one of them, though). What do you suggest I do to handle that?

The best would be to have the remaining serious problems (minor formatting details are to be ignored in case of a GA, but not for an FA, I presume) listed out. I can't decide, and therefore I have to do all of them, and go baffled when websites and printers' pages of books don't conform to Wikipedia formats. There probably aren't too many serious problems that remain. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I finished up the work on the references, so that is all good. The only other thing left is the picture of the whale with the large caption. I was fairly sure that information was moved into the prose of the article. Was it moved back again? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee thanks. I don't think I can ever repay this debt. The large caption about the sculpture was moved into the body of the text. Check the first sentence of the very last paragraph of the article to find it. I hope I did it right. Advice? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had discussed moving some of the text about the whale ("Tail of a whale, the inspiration behind the coinage..." into the prose). According to the MOS, image captions are supposed to be succinct. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have turned that into an infobox-type item, a style of layout which seems to be okay for many FAs. Check and tell me if it's alright. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. With that said, the article is comprehensive, well-written, properly sourced, neutral, stable, and illustrated with appropriate free-use images. It meets all of the GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations! Thank you for your patience, hard work, and quick responses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)