Talk:History of Caribana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the GA review. I may be out of town on-and-off for the next week, but I should be able to get to it soon. --Noleander (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: (see comment below on "why only 4 years")

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments from reviewer

Overall, it looks pretty good. I don't see any big obstacles to getting this to GA status. I see two issues so far:

1) The prose does not flow smoothly. Sentences seem to jump from one to another with little or no transition. There are several paragraphs that are only 1 sentence ... unless there is a compelling reason for that, that is unsat. For GA, it does not have to be professional quality writing, or FA level. But it should be a little "smoother" than it is now. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for some ideas. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) This article only covers 4 years of the history. That needs to be explained somehow: why just those 4 years? Why stop at 1971? Why exclude 1972? In other words, why is this article broken out from the History of Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto article? --Noleander (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reply below about the time period, but the fact remains that there has to be some significance to stopping at 1971 .. this article is not close to reaching limits imposed by WP:SIZE. Is there any key change to the event in 1971 that would explain why this article stops at that point in time? If not, it is not a good ending year .. so is there some big change in 1970 or 1972? --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days, and no one is responding. I prompted the nominator on their Talk page, but havent seen any action. So, I set the GA status to "failed". If someone wants to revive it, just start a new GA nomination. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for the delay. It's hard to wrap my head around this topic, after a two months of not thinking about it. The SCC is not a topic that I have any experience with, having never attended, and having little in-depth knowledge of the Caribbean-Canadian community in the Toronto area before this article. It's just difficult to reboot on a dime.

I've tried to focus individual paragraphs on singular topics, and thus have tried to avoid text being jumpy from sentence to sentence. That said, my single-sentence paragraphs consist of all the relevant information on that particular topic. The more I merge them with other paragraphs, the more jumpy paragraphs you get. It's either one problem or the other, I don't see a happy medium.

Finally, 1967 is one year, 1968 is two years, 1969 is three years, 1970 is four year, and 1971 is five years. That said, it ends in 1971, as the age of innocence was over. The happy Caribbean event that the Caucasian majority was happy to have suddenly had violence on a bus, deaths (albeit caused by a freak accident), and boycotts by Black student groups. While they turned a profit, the event's length was drastically shortened, and ambitious events gradually cut. It was the end of the optimistic Caribana, and the start of the mere "jump up" era, which through the 1980s and 1990s in particular, was marked with violence.

Thing is, there's really never been an authoritative history of Caribana (there's only been one souvenir-style book, and two student thesises), and so there's no one source to say about eras. The actual end of an era discussed above is Wikipedia:SYNTH, sorta. So five years seems round and easy to set as a cut point, for the first set of years in the series. But if I wrote at length about the other years in the same article as this, it would become WP:SIZE. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can revive this GA nomination. I'll be numbering my comments here (1), (2), etc. When you believe you've addressed each of them, add an indented comment directly under the individual numbered comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) The lead does not summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the intro to talk about the trends of the event, over the five years, and outside forces working for and against it (for: the City, against: Carnival Toronto). I've also realized that my language was back in the 1960s, the intro made reference to West Indians (which is what Black Canadians referred to themselves as at that time), so that's been updated. Here's the diff between the first revision you saw, and the current.

4) There is no "See also" section. It is not required, of couse, but can you check to see if any other articles (not already linked in this article) may be appropriate for a See Also section? --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked in Caribbean Carnival and History of Toronto as a see also.

Thanks -- Zanimum (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Items (1) and (2) still need to be addressed. For (2) ... that is the "why end at 1971?" issue. I don't think there needs to be a huge change in 1971 to justify this article's end date: but there has to be some reason why 1971 was chosen (WP:SIZE is not an adequate reason). And that reason should be mentioned at the end of the article, wrapping it up. Or else extend the article a year or two until some significant change occurred. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]