Talk:Sunshine & Health/GA1

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.

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

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.