Talk:Sunshine & Health

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

Mikehawk10 hasn't made any edits in a month, so I'm declaring this review abandoned and flipping this article's status to seeking a new reviewer. (Discussed here) Colin M (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunshine & Health/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 04:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look through this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through it on my first read, there are currently fourteen references in the text, corresponding to six sources. I'm noticing that a reference used four times is a thesis completed in partial fulfillment for a bachelor's degree. I don't think that this is a reliable source; WP:SCHOLARSHIP is silent on bachelor's theses, but notes that a Master's thesis are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I'd presume that the same would apply for a bachelor's thesis, and it does not appear to be the case that the particular bachelor's thesis has had significant scholarly influence.
Another source, cited five times, is this journal article. The citation appears to currently be to page 599 for all of its five uses, though none of the information that is referenced actually appears on page 599 of the article; the citations need to be fixed to incorporate the correct page numbers. On this basis alone, I'm inclined to give a quick fail at this time, but being that this is only my second review of a good article nomination, I'll look for a second opinion before I would move forward with that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mikehawk10, thanks for taking a look at this. I would hope that a quick fail is not necessary here though. My understanding is that it's an option to be used if an article is so far from meeting the WP:GACR that it's unlikely the editor(s) working on the article will be able to address all the issues in a reasonable amount of time, or it would put an undue burden on the reviewer to actually enumerate all the problems. The two issues you mentioned above OTOH seem very tractable. In particular, the second is very easy to fix (599 is the page on which the article begins. I agree that the intent there is currently not clear though. I can easily replace it with a page range, or possibly short footnotes with individual page numbers per cite.). The first issue is trickier, but I think given a day I can replace the cites to the thesis with other sources (and possibly remove any statements that can't be verified in more reliable sources). Colin M (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I think I've addressed the issues you raised. I was able to find alternative sources for all the claims that were previously cited to the thesis, with the exception of the one about this being the first nudist magazine in the US - I've replaced that with the somewhat weaker claim of it being the "flagship magazine" of the US nudist movement. Would appreciate it if you'd be willing to give the article another look. Colin M (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I'll take another look through the article soon. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunshine & Health/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "1933 until 1963" infobox says last published in 1968.
    •  Done (infobox param corrected)
  • "has been described as" by whom?
    • By the cited source (Hoffman). My understanding is that in-text attribution isn't necessary in cases like this where the source can be determined by looking at the corresponding footnote. And the documentation at Template:According to whom basically accords with this.
  • "distributed through the mail" by subsscription?
    •  Done
  • "the Post Office" be clear, was it the United States Postal Service?
  • "Supreme Court" link.
    •  Done
  • "in a favourable" to whom?
    • To the magazine. I was hoping that would be clear. Do you have suggestions for alternative wording?
  • Based in "New Jersey[1]" this should be in the lead and also the main body, and referenced there rather than in the infobox.
    •  Partly done. I added a sentence about this to the body. I don't think it's important enough that it also needs to go in the intro section. It's only mentioned in passing in both of the most in-depth sources on the topic.
  • "At the launch of the magazine" where and when was it launched?
    •  Partly done I added a reiteration of the debut year to this sentence. Sources don't specify a location for the magazine's offices at its debut. (Both sources that mention the New Jersey location only do so in reference to the timeframe of the early 1950s.)
  • "A.B. " -> "A. B."
    •  Done
  • "it is believed that " speculation, unless someone you can attribute said this?
    • The cited source says this
  • "The magazine attempted to gain ..." unreferenced sentence.
    •  Done (added citation)
  • "Supreme Court victory in Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield" repeat the links from the lead in the main body, so here Supreme Court and Summerfield.
    •  Done
  • "The magazine included a combination" unreferenced single-sentence paragraph.
  • "publication SUN Magazine" what was this magazine about?
    • I think the quote that follows makes this clear (i.e. it was another nudist publication)
  • "were described as" by whom?
    • The same judge to whom the previous quote was attributed. I could add in-text attribution to state this, but I'm not sure it would be an improvement, because a) the focus of this section is the photographs and other content of the magazine, not the judge, and b) the sentence is cited to the same court decision that is used to cite the earlier blockquote - so the reader should be easily able to determine the source of the quotes.
  • "The judge noted that cover photos...." missing ref.
    •  Done
  • "Legal troubles" can we avoid single-sentence paragraphs here?
    • I know some people have a stylistic aversion to them, but I don't think they're in violation of any of the WP:GACR.
  • Again, is "US Post Office" actually the United States Postal Service? Link.
    • "Post Office" is the epithet used by all the cited sources, not "Postal Service". But I added a second wikilink.
  • "Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield" title should be in italics.
    •  Done
  • Same in external links.
    •  Done
  • "penis... clearly" non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
    •  Done
  • "per curiam decision" decision should be in the link.
    •  Done
  • "On the same day, the court" unreferenced.
  • "1958-1962" en-dash.
    •  Done
  • "1947-58"" likewise.
    •  Done
  • Instead of double quotes (ref 3) using apostrophes within quotes.
    •  Done
  • Ref 6, avoid CAPITALISATION.
    •  Done

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the feedback. I think this is ready for another look. See above for inline responses. Colin M (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be pretending that Wikipedia is a reliable source and/or forcing readers to chase from article to article to verify facts, but it's not worth arguing over, so I'll promote. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Sunshine_%26_Health"