Talk:History of The New York Times (1896–1945)/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. 750h+ (talk) 05:26, 10 March 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

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 04:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this, the other one needs to be sorted out by you and Sideswipe9th, @ElijahPepe:. 750h+ (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall it is a nice article. It is illustrated by good pictures and is excellently written. My only concern is that when referencing multiple pages, it must be pp., not p. For example, "Berger 1951, p. 109." is correctly laid out. But when it comes to multiple page refs, it should be referenced like this: Berger 1951, pp. 111-116. not like this: Berger 1951, p. 111-116. 750h+ (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add WP:ALT text for pictures too. 750h+ (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Address these concerns and I'm happy to pass the article.
I would be hesitant to pass this at this time. One of the major issues with the first article in the series, beside the number of citations needed, is that the individual page numbers and page ranges do not always verify the content they're supporting. There's also places where the narrative is unclear, and jumps around in odd places. There's a dicussion on The NTY talk page where I've listed all of the specific issues that need addressing, as that is where we're currently co-ordinating getting all of the articles to GA and eventually FA status.
I have on my to-do list to go through this, and the other two history articles to check for the same sorts of issues as in the first history article. However I've been ill for the last few days and alongside my other off-wiki stuff I've just not had the time and energy to do so yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that, I was talking about the dispute that looked like was emerging on the History of The New York Times (1851–1896) article, not here, where you said it needed citations but Elijah was saying the opposite. I'm only talking to Elijah in this discussion. Also I don't think this article needs citations; every paragraph is sourced. 750h+ (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, however multiple editors can contribute to a GAR and I'm giving you information that's relevant to the review of this article.
Because of the issues I discovered when reviewing the first article to see how much work would be needed to meet the GA and eventually FA criteria, I have a concern that the other three articles in this series have the same problems that would constitute a fail per GACR#1a, 2b, 3a and 3b. At the time I undertook that review, I was not aware Elijah had already nominated the series, and I would be minded to consider that nomination premature.
Respectfully, per WP:GAN/I#R3#1 have you done a spot check on a sample of the book citations in the article? Because I have for the other article, and many of the page and page ranges numbers do not verify the content they're being cited in support of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quickfailed the first article because of the amount of citation needed tags. Finished reviewing. I'm still in wonder of where the page numbers came from though 750h+ (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I'm still in wonder of where the page numbers came from though". This article, and the first in the series, cite heavily from two books. The Story of the New York Times, 1851-1951 by Meyer Berger, and History of the New York Times: 1851-1921 by Elmer Davis. You can access multiple editions of both through the archive.org library. The page numbers provided in the first article in the series do not match up with any of the editions that I've been able to access, and unfortunately the citation provided doesn't specify which edition was used when the article content was written. Some are off by a single page, some are off by multiple pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that; I mean if the page numbers weren't correct, why were they cited in the first place 750h+ (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah. I suspect when the content was written, the edition that Elijah has does not correspond to any of the copies available through archive.org. He likely has a much newer copy of the books than they scanned, and the page numbers are just different in the newer version due to typesetting changes between editions. The content itself isn't incorrect, and it is verifiable to other pages in the editions archive.org provide. But because the citations don't specify which edition was used, the content is borderline unverifiable at present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand GAC to enough depth to weigh in on pass/fails based on quality. I will just note that the nom happened midway through people finding and fixing issues with prose and detailing. Elijah is completely free to not join discussions/people working at these at the main NYT article talk., I just consider it odd to do that + still nom for GA while an overhaul is ongoing. Soni (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really been looking at the history, I just saw the nomination. I guess we should have waited for when the article was more stable. My bad. We can close this. 750h+ (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.