Talk:Ephemera/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. This is a very interesting topic for an article and I look forward to reading it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I may not have time to continue the review until Sunday, but will complete it then. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Gives time to wrap up outstanding enquires. DMT Biscuit (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• This article has serious prose issues that need attention. It is filled with vague statements and confusing phrases. Many sentences feel as though they have been run through a thesaurus designed to produce obfuscatory language. I cannot understand many of the sentences; academia-speak runs rampant. In addition, there are repetitions of content that make it unclear what each section's focus is. The prose issues are severe enough that if they are not rapidly fixed, the article cannot pass GA. The detailed comments below give a sense of the problem; I only got through the lead and 1.5 sections before exhausting myself. The article looks good on a broad scale, but as soon as you try to really understand what each sentence means, problems present themselves. There are repeated issues with passive verb tense. It is not something I generally have an issue with, but here it is used far too liberally to make sweeping statements and support claims from unidentified sources. Please read through the comments below and let me know what you think about all this. I'd like to see this article reach GA, but I'm afraid many parts of it will need a comprehensive re-write to be comprehensible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  @DMT Biscuit: Thank you for the copyedits you've been making! How quickly do you think you'll be able to get through all the comments and then through the rest of the article. The prose overall is still pretty far from GA standard in most of the article right now; perhaps I could put the review on hold for two weeks to give you time to go through it fully? Let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I should be done with your outlined copyedits by today. Real-life and such got in the way. I'll then do a general overview. Two weeks seems a bit excessive but I appreciate the notice. If by that point it's still a work in progress then, shall we say, greener pastures and whatnot.

• Please ping me when you are done with your edits. Bear in mind that I was only able to get through the first half of the article - there are similar prose issues in the second half as well; if you can work through those, that would be great - if you'd like for me to make more specific comments on them, like the ones below, just let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have no objections to you continuing your comments. It's per your discretion. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  @DMT Biscuit: I've just had another careful read through and although you have made improvements in some places, the article still has many confusing sentences, difficult-to-parse phrases, and overly obfuscatory language choices. Not all of the comments below have been addressed yet, either. I'll give it another 24 hours, but at the end of that period, unless the prose is dramatically improved, this GA review will not pass. However, I would encourage you not to give up - there's a lot of great material here and the article has plenty of potential. I'd recommend asking for help from the WP:GUILD of Copyeditors, and then re-nominating for GA after going through the article with a fine-toothed comb. Thank you for your effort on this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• I concur that the GAN should come to a timely end. Presently, my time isn't what it was. Best to take the tortoise approach, so to speak. I've had experience with the Guild so I am confident in the results to come. Thanks for the thorough review. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is usual, I've gone through and made any prose tweaks and nitpicks myself to save us time. If there are any changes you object to, let me know and we can discuss. The definition given in the lead should be attributed in the lead as well as the body "presently sovereign" is a confusing phrase. Sovereign according to who? Has this definition been officially accepted anywhere? Do you just mean "most commonly used"? "Although disposability is a recurring and emphasised characteristic of ephemera in virtually all definitions, the quality of paper differs." How does the second half of the sentence relate to the first? Ephemera isn't necessarily on paper. How would its quality affect its disposability? Also, emphasised by who? It's also confusing to read that there is a "presently sovereign" definition and then to read that there are many definitions here. In the 20th century... these collectors steered the decision towards preserving ephemera, which is now ubiquitous in archives and library special collections." Congregate where? It's unclear if this means literally or via the written word. "Steered the decision" implies a singular, worldwide decision was made to preserve ephemera, which is not the case - rephrase. "Ephemera has received academic attention" - redundant to some material in the prior paragraph. "in of itself" - "for its own sake" would work better "as a beneficial prospect to other fields..background" - this is vague. Would be better to rephrase to discuss some specific fields ephemera is particularly useful in. "Viewed" by who? Is the poem by Yeats relevant to the topic of the article? The article isn't about the word "ephemera" but the category of transient objects/prints. Was the current meaning established by JOhnson in 1751 or in the 20th century? The paragraph is unclear. Same question about the "presently sovereign" definition in the body as above. "A hierarchy of printed material....forms of culture." These two sentences are hard to parse. What exactly are you trying to say here? "able to either be discarded or withstand." Withstand what? I'm not sure what this means. "they're a type of graphic art." They meaning ephemera? Rephrase. In general, by categorisation, do you mean "definition"? If so, I'd suggest using "definition" as its meaning is clearer in context. "invoked by librarians to conclude arrangement" - what does this phrase mean? Are you saying that it's difficult to sort various ephemera into the proper place in a library's classification scheme? "The value of ephemera is a persistently relevant to its categorisation, with such a component distinguishing ephemera from jobbing print, as well does ephemera's emphasised temporality" - I cannot parse this sentence and do not know what it is trying to say. "This value is often demarcates ephemera's ephemerality" - I also cannot understand this. What value? What is "is" doing in this sentence? "could befit an argument concerning categorisation as ephemera" simplify to "could be considered ephemera" " the "antithesis of litera[ture]"" - not sure what this means - can you rephrase to clarify? " although it can manifest in a manifold of material differences, however with pervading characteristics." this is vague and unclear "The range of printed ephemera is complex and often eludes simple definition." this sentence is actually good, clear and well-written, but comes too late in the article. Move it up and use it to replace some of the word salad in the preceding section or the lead. "intaglio acquired prestige." prestige with who? Source doesn't specifiy. Shall I just say 'general prestige'? DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Sure, that's fine. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Conversely, early ephemera indicates a greater access to printing from common people." how is this converse if early ephemera were contemporaneous with artists considered to have produced ephemera? " the opposite or united element being information;" - I cannot parse this sentence clearly. What is being said here? "although ephemera had still been broad" - why is this clause here? What does it mean? "instigated instances of ephemera with robust ubiquity;" simplify to "created vast amounts of ephemera" "contemporaneous sentimentality" meaning nostalgia? Or something else? "Assignats saw widespread contempt on account of their low-quality, thus they "might seem the most ephemeral of ephemera". why does this sentence come just after the one on temperance-era ephemera? What is the connection? "By this point, ephemera was printed by various establishments, having likely become a major element of some." by what point? What does "a major element of some" mean? Ok, I'm going to stop here for now and make a broader comment above the review. This article has serious prose issues. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. 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).	Almost exclusively academic sources - all reliable in nature. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm finding some information on link rot relating to digital ephemera - would be good to mention that in the appropriate section. I'll do the old google scholar search. Hi. Having looked over this, I find a complete lack of information pertaining to this information - would you mind linking the material you found? These sources would provide some material - it doesn't have to be a lot, just one or two sentences (1 2 3 4) I have added a line, with relevant citation, of course: "an increased reliance upon this form of ephemera has engendered concern, chiefly regarding later accessibility." I was unable to access the Springer chapter, I'd be much grateful if you have a means of relaying the information, but don't fret otherwise. It would also be good to slightly expand the reference of the importance of ephemera to queer/lgbt studies. Yeah, that's fine. There's certainly material to be found, as I have in the past. I have added a line regarding the conception of "queer ephemera". That being said, it should be said that this enquiry covers quite abstract material - postmodern, if you will. An example from Russell (2018): The importance of ephemera to queer studies in the 1990s therefore has a long history: queer studies itself is arguably impossible without the invention of the ephemeral as a zone of fugitive knowledge, indeterminate legibility, and potentially boundless affect". I think, in our attempt to appeal to the layperson, this section should remain in its current capacity. Maybe with attention to Munoz's influential conception. Feel free to state otherwise. This issue is a little more subtle, but it strikes me that the article is largely focused on the *academic* view of ephemera. It would be interesting to add a little bit of material on ephemera as experienced by ordinary people - I'm seeing some news articles mentioning calls for collection of ephemera by museums, amateur ephemera collectors, the explosion of junk mail, etc. That is certainly a notable dimension of the article, as even the mentions of amateur collections is through the lens of academia. A skim at Newspapers.com indicates that there was a spike in public attention around the 80s (which, reassuringly, corresponds with the article). I'm sure the likes of the New York Times magazine and the New Yorker have run pieces. I'll take a look.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not overly detailed. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues - pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, expansion, etc - stable. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases - British Ministry of Health.jpg could use a US copyright tag as well. Resolved. Pass, issue addressed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some of the captions can be improved - suggestions below: A piece of ephemera circa 1749–1751, a time when Samuel Johnson articulated notions of transient prints akin to that of ephemera around the time Samuel Johnson may have coined the term Ephemera related to the temperance movement which resulted in a vast amount of ephemera The temperance movement generated a vast amount of ephemera Decapitalize "Marten" Ephemera of Britain (left) and America (right), the two countries most prominent in the interest of ephemera 20th century ephemera from the UK (left) and the United States (right) All resolved. Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.