Talk:Battle of the Frogs/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (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.

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

Nominator: Gobonobo (talk · contribs) 21:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

What an interesting article! I will review this soon. I grew up in Connecticut and simply couldn't pass this up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
No issues with this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
A few minor concerns I raised have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References look good, apart from a minor error with the sole further reading entry, which includes a publication location but no publisher. Should be an easy fix for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
I am satisfied with the reliability of the sources in the article and the density of inline citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Good, per spot checks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The CTMQ source comes up, see [1], but the text in the article was written two years before the CTMQ article, so they plagiarized from Wikipedia. Nothing else comes up as a concern. Will evaluate in source checks but otherwise a pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
We have discussion of the event, its aftermath (including differences in various accounts), its legacy, and possible explanations for the phenomenon. I believe this checks all the boxes as far as broad coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Not a concern. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Having given the article a read-through, I am satisfied this criterion is met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Not an issue here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Everything is easily public domain apart from the frog bridge photo, which is under an appropriate license. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I appreciate the effort put in to illustrate a difficult topic to portray with photos, since there obviously aren't any contemporaneous photos to be had. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I think this meets the criteria now. Congratulations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Be consistent, is mill pond two words or one? You use both in the first section.

Fixed. Going with mill pond.

What makes CTMQ a reliable source? From its about page, the author is very clear that Disclaimer: CTMQ is not, in any way, associated with any museums or other places discussed on this website. Nothing here is official, nothing is to be taken as gospel, and nothing should be used as your top resource for any museum, trail, restaurant, etc. I’m just one guy having some fun. This would appear to therefore fall under the category of a self-published source, putting its reliability into question. In any case, you should be able to substitute a reliable source for the material it is cited to.

I've pulled the CTMQ source.

Watch for instances of WP:WEASEL, such as According to some accounts.
Herpetologist should be linked to Herpetology as an uncommon word.

Linked.

police shoulder patches incorporate the town seal, which includes a frog in its design Wouldn't it be easier to just state that a frog is included in the town seal?

Reworded.

The one sentence in the first part of the legacy section about the frog bridge seems irrelevant, given it has its own subheading later within the same section.

Removed the sentence.

I will continue this review soon. Apologies for the longer than anticipated delay in getting it started. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Trainsandotherthings. No worries. I haven't done one of these in a long time. I appreciate your review. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

I checked references 3, 7, 13, 22, and 27. These were not randomly selected, but intentionally chosen as the references most used in the article.

Reference 3 (Lawyers and Bullfrogs), everything checks out. Pass.
Reference 7 (Nocturnal Sounds) is actually a guest post authored by Julianne Mangin, who should be credited as an author as well as Pad Padua.

I've switched the author to Mangin. It looks like it was merely posted by Padua, so I've removed their name.

Windham became the laughingstock of the colonies is a little too close to the source language of Windham became the laughing-stock of the colonies. I realize this is one sentence, but our rules on WP:CLOP are rather strict.

Not sure how to reword this, so I've added quotes.

The article mentions a song called "Good Old Windham Flip" but the song is not named in the reference.

I've added a reference to the piano score.

Other instances of this reference check out. Please address the items identified.

Reference 13 (The Frogs of Windham)

The claim about fabricated blue laws is not supported by this source. I remember seeing it in Lawyers and bullfrogs. Please check for text-source integrity and cite this claim to the proper source. Other instances of this source pass verification.

Added a reference.

Reference 22 (A Froggy Place in History)

Everything checks out here.

Reference 27 (Frog Notes of Windham), reference is dead and should be marked as such.

Done.

All good.

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.