Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2023 [1].

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most famous editorials of all time, I think this article is comprehensive and otherwise meets the FA criteria. A nice Christmastime theme, if nothing else. Apologies for rusty-ness after a long break from FAC. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria would Template:PD-US-unpublished therefore apply? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends - what is the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer my own question: actually it's 1998. So no it doesn't apply. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Unfortunately per the Cornell chart a first verifiable publication in 1998 would give us a non-PD image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Eddie891, according to the Cornell chart the photo is in public domain, as it is by an unknown photographer and was created in 1868, thus: "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known. 120 years from date of creation" comes to 1988. If first publication found is 1998 then that clears by 10 years the Cornell bar of 120 years after creation. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not correct. The reason the PD-US-unpublished has the 2003 cutoff is because of the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976: this act provided that for works created but not published before 1978, "in no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047". Prior to 1976 unpublished works had "perpetual copyright" per this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The Church image was kept on commons-- it would seem that per the Hirtle chart a 1998 publication would still fall more than 120 years after creation meaning that it is PD? The Virginia O'hanlon image has a first publication of 2010, meaning PD-unpublished should definitely apply. Does that sound right to you? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above, no on the Church image. The unpublished provision only kicks in for works that were not published before 2003. (It appears that unfortunately no one corrected this misconception at the Commons discussion). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then either let's move the image to Wikipedia, ask the WMF to step in and challenge this in court, or just let it go even if this feature nomination has to be ended because of it. The image of the author of the most famous editorial in history is essential for the "Yes, Virginia" page, for his own page, for the Editorial page, and yes, essential for the Santa Claus page as this man championed Santa like nobody else did at the turn of the century and maybe ever since. The image was taken in 1868 by an unknown photographer (actually the photo used was of the image in a signed frame - is that picture available to use?), if you say it's now copyrighted, who owns the copyright? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who owns the copyright, but that the image is under copyright. We can't leave a copyright violating image in an article just because we feel like it. This isn't a question about a featured article or not. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's from 1868. Nobody owns the copyright. Or just pay 50 dollars for the Wikipedia website use of that photo it came from. Christmas week too. This seems the only photograph of a person who wrote the most famous editorial in history, so move it to English Wikipedia from Commons. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, and paying that website wouldn't change anything, because Wikipedia images can't be restricted to a single site. Commons spells it out: "if it was published in 1978–2001, that copyright is extended to December 31, 2047 if it's shorter". It doesn't really matter what time of year we are having this discussion. And to be honest, I personally doubt that anyone would lose their Christmas spirit by seeing one less picture of a dead white guy without that image in this article. But if you really feel the need to ignore copyright laws and stall this FAC completely, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: It would seem we have hit a brick wall here. You can go ahead and archive this if you see fit. Randy Kryn, I will remove the page from my watchlist and cease work on it. Merry Christmas. Sincere apologies for wasting the reviewers time, particularly that of Nikkimaria. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't cancel a feature review once it's started. You say the copyright is until 2047, please realize that's coming up on 200 years since the photo was taken, a photo that nobody owns the copyright to. And maybe strike the racist bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, withdrawing a FAC is very much allowed ... Hog Farm Talk 14:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what's racist about my comment but if you do specify what you find offensive I would be happy to strike. That was not my intention. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dead white guy comment. Could be just "dead guy" (although, corpseist?) And please don't give up on the feature, thanks. I do have good faith intentions, especially as a former journalism major. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've amended my comment, apologies on that front. I don't doubt your good intentions, it's clear you care about improving the wiki. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie891, and your good faith intentions are very clear and commendable (except for giving up, keep on keeping on, the well-deserving page should be featured next Christmas season since this one's queue is all taken up already, although if a spot could be traded in the couple days remaining and the photo is the only thing holding it up I'd temporarily withdraw my objection to removing the photo from the Virginia article, although how about Hog Farm's point below?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to make sense to me, but I'm not confident enough on any aspect of image licensing to make the change myself, to be honest. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Would Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed not work? It looks like a Commons community discussion came to a consensus that in these weird situations where it's unclear, that > 120 years old it's same to assume no copyright is still enforceable. Hog Farm Talk 14:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good find Hog Farm. As for the feature try, can't someone else take it over if Eddie891 doesn't want to follow through? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that particular tag wouldn't work either - that replaces a life+70 tag for an older work with an unknown author, but as the template itself notes a US tag is still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What gets chosen for TFA is pretty much the scheduler's call. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie, is there any reason why you haven't pulled this image? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Gog the Mild, removed from the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the Cornell chart, boldface mine, which shows that, if created before 1978 and first published from 1 March 1989 through 2002, copyright expires from the "greater of the term specified in the previous entry", i.e. 120 years from creation:
"From 1 March 1989 through 2002 Created after 1977 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"
"From 1 March 1989 through 2002 Created before 1978 and first published in this period The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047"
What am I missing in this language? Created in 1868 by an unknown photographer, first published in 1998, more than 120 years after creation. How is this not public domain. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The greater of". In this case that is 31 December 2047. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading, boldfaced mine: "the greater of the term specified in the previous entry" as 120 years. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote is the greater of (term specified in previous) OR (31 December 2047). In this case the latter is greater. You can confirm this with reference to the act quoted above: "if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still reading it as 120 years from date of creation, as defined by the wording within "the previous entry". Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous entry is one of the two options you compare with "the greater of". In this case the previous entry is the lesser of those two options, the greater being 2047 per the Act. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you read the "or 31 December 2047" and decided that the phrase was solely for dramatic effect. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Greater" comes to 120 years, which put the public domain year at 1988, and once in public domain in can't be taken into copyright. The article that it was published within is what was copyrighted, not the photograph itself which, at the time it was published, was in public domain. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't endorse the phrasing of AirshipJungleman's comment, I do agree that you seem to be overlooking a critical part of what you've bolded: 31 December 2047 is greater than 120 years from creation. If the wording of the chart is confusing, the wording of the act is crystal clear: "if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047". This work was published on or before December 31, 2002, and therefore its term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "which appeared in The Sun" - I would say "New York newspaper The Sun", as when I read this my immediate reaction was that it meant The Sun
  • Image caption gives the paper's title as the New York Sun but everywhere else it is just The Sun
  • "Church's authorship was not disclosed until his 1906 death" => "Church's authorship was not disclosed until after his 1906 death" unless it was disclosed at literally the moment of his death, which seems unlikely
  • In the Church section, just link his name in the first sentence rather than using an unnecessary "main article" template
  • "Church had returned to The Sun to work part-time in 1874 and after The Galaxy merged with The Atlantic Monthly in 1878 he joined the paper's staff full-time as an editor and writer." - which paper's staff? You just mentioned three, so this is very confusing wording
  • "the letter was sent sent shortly" - duplicate word
  • "Church was not disclosed as the editorial's author until he died in 1906" - as above
  • "Campbell argued in 2006 that Church might not not have welcomed" - another duplicate word
  • "its content was have been" - doesn't make sense
  • "Beach also wrote that paper's should not" => "Beach also wrote that papers should not"
  • "the 1975 Emmy Award for outstanding children special" - guessing this should be "the 1975 Emmy Award for outstanding children's special"
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @ChrisTheDude, I think I've addressed all of the above (instituted all those suggestions). Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "about it." Campbell theorizes the letter was sent shortly after O'Hanlon's birthday in July and "overlooked or misplaced" for a time." I would put a "was" before the quote.
  • Done
  • "The historian and journalist Bill Kovarik described the editorial as part of a broader "revival of the Christmas holiday" that took place during the late 19th century in various publications such as Thomas Nast's art.[33] " Thomas Nast's art is a publication?
  • I suppose not. Rephrased to "publication of various works such as Thomas Nast's art"
  • I wonder if the 1951 opposition to it is worth including since it the source is contemporary and had no lasting impact.
  • I mean, I think it's an interesting anecdote and Campbell does cite it in passing in his analysis, but I'm certainly not wedded to keeping it in.
  • "She kept her ex-husband's surname the rest of her life, styled as "Laura Virginia O'Hanlon Douglas."[21" Perhaps "styling herself" rather than "styled"?
  • Done
  • You allude to "early republications" being in newspapers besides the Sun. A look at Newspapers.com shows a fair number of contemporary reprints in 1897. Is anything known about how this came to be? Also, you may find this clip and the image there useful.
  • Is there any discussion of what's probably the second-most famous quote from the exchange, "If you read it in the Sun, it's so", which has come to mean a (possibly naive) believe in the truthfulness of newspapers?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, I think I've responded to all of the above. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I can tell you believe in Santa Claus because you've nominated an article at FAC in December in the expectation that it will pass by Christmas. As Santa would say: ho ho ho.

References
[edit]
  • fn 1: publisher?
  • fn 1: location?
  • If standardized to no location parameter in the bibliography, I'd image it would be nixed here as well, correct?
  • fn 1: publication date?
  • It already has year of publication= 1989 I think
  • fn 2, 20: CS1 maint warnings: remove the url-status card
  • fn 2, 14, 20, 50: use publisher instead of website
  • fn 7, 9, 31, 53: location required where name of newspaper does not contain it
  • fn 7: add via=newspapers.com
  • fn 22, 49, 52: issn?
  • fn 33: Link isn't working for me
  • Added archive url
  • fn 43: Gonyc.about.com is a website
  • fn 44: date?
  • fn 44: byline?
  • fn 44, 53: Consider marking as requiring subscription
  • added both
  • fn 48: Add degree=PhD
  • fn 55: Should be the New York Times
Bibliography
[edit]
  • Bowler, Crump, Forbes, Hirsch, Kovarik, Nissenbaum, Turner, Woolery: location?
  • Standardized to no location
  • Nissenbaum, Turner: title case?
  • title case
  • I have reformatted your ISBNs to ISBN-13
Spot checks
[edit]
  • fn 32, 43, 50, 55 - okay
  • Could not verify fn 31
    • I can send you a scan, if you want to verify.

Sources are of high quality.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye7, all points (I believe) responded to or addressed. Let me know if there's anything else. And yes, perhaps we will have a Christmas miracle with regards to promotion... Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added all locations of publication for consistency, on second thought. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned that I followed your own formatting. I wouldn't normally have added an ISSN to The New York Times, for example, but you did in some places and not others... Same with the location; it was there for some but not all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • Refreshing to see a short article with a short lead!
  • "The Sun gradually accepted its popularity and republished it during the Christmas season every year from 1924 to 1950, when the paper ceased publication." - I don't know if "accepted" works as the verb here - I suspect you're trying to convey coming to terms with popularity but I think there are better ways to convey that. What about "As the editorial became popular over the years, The Sun started republishing it [...]" - I think that reads a little better.
  • yes, added
  • ""Is There a Santa Claus?" is commonly reprinted during the Christmas and holiday season" - Is it reprinted by a specific paper or just widely? I think worth clarifying that detail (I assume the later, in which case widely can probably replace commonly)
  • Yes, widely-- changed
  • I think I see a relatively minor, but widespread pattern of what appears to me to be incorrect comma usage. For example, in the first sentence, "[...]1897, and became one of the most famous editorials ever published" has a comma before "and" that isn't needed. The comma is only necessary if the second clause of the compound sentence is an independent clause, ie, if this read "and it became [...]." You should either stick to getting rid of that comma or adding a subject for the second clause in those sentences throughout. If this doesn't make sense, perhaps this explains it better [3]. I notice this issue a number of times in the article, and I can happily point them out if you'd like.
  • I do agree-- but in that case the comma is there per MOS:DATECOMMA "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year". I've gone through and cut a few others that I think are unnecessary. If there are more that I missed, I would greatly appreciate it if you either put them here or just go ahead and cut them yourself. No worries either way.
  • "founded and edited several publications: The Army and Navy Journal (1863)," - is the date in parentheses the year they founded each journal? I think it would be helpful to clarify by adding "in" for the first instance and then the "in" would be implied for the following two examples.
  • Sure
  • "and later at The Sun." - I'd add, as you did in the lead, New York newspaper The Sun since it's a very common newspaper name
  • Done
  • "scholar W. Joseph Campbell as favoring "vituperation and personal attack"." - you should cite immediately after a direct quote
  • Added, but is there a policy that says cites are needed directly after quotes? If there is I'm either unaware of it or forgot it.
Under "Attribution" the MoS states "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to her letter for long enough that she "forgot about it."" - don't think the direct quote is really needed here, but if you keep it that way you need a citation immediately after
  • Cut the quotes
  • "Mitchell reported that Church, who was initially reluctant to write a response, produced it "in a short time"[1] during an afternoon.[12]" - does the source say when? Especially since the sentences before spend a lot of time discussing a timeline?
  • Unfortunately not, though I'd imagine near to its publication
  • "gradually began to "warm to" the editorial." - citation after direct quote
  • Sure
  • "and the editorial as definitely "the nation's best known."[31]" - I'd cut out definitely; it adds nothing here
  • Done
  • "The editorial came under attack in 1951" - I think the last two sentences are meant to show that not all reception is necessarily positive for the editorial, but I have two issues with the paragraph. First, you should probably add a topic sentence to better drive home that point. Second, it's weird that the year is given for this "attack" and for several other critics in this section, but not for the comments from Geo Beach or Rick Horowitz
  • Done, dated Horowitz, but Beach is also from 1997 (in the same sentence as Newton) and not sure the best way to date it.
  • "The phrase "Yes, Virginia, there is (a)..." has often been used[45] to emphasize that "fantasies and myths are important" and can be "spiritually if not literally true".[46]" - You need to add a bit more here. In which settings? Also, a few more sentences would be nice otherwise this seems like an orphan statement that doesn't add much to the article or this section.
  • I agree it feels a bit like an orphaned statement, and I haven't been able to find anything else clearly outlined in reliable sources. However, I'd prefer not to axe it entirely, as it's one of the most prominent uses of the editorial. And the phrase is used in a lot of settings (see [4] and [5] in the past few days, for instance) but again I just can't really find anything cementing it. Thoughts? I'm not sure the best course of action.
  • "doctorate" in education? In what? Do sources say?
  • Added
  • Why is the "Virginia O'Hanlon" section at the end of the article but the Francis Pharcellus Church section is at the beginning? Also, while I appreciate the work that went into all the details of her life, is it really necessary to provide all of this biographical information beyond the first half of the third paragraph in this section? It doesn't seem she is notable on her own, and I certainly think a lot of the information seems gratuitous (details about her husband, her education, where she is buried, or the scholarship fund). I am open to discussion of this point, but having a hard time understanding the need for all of this detail.
  • This is interesting to me. Virginia is almost certainly a BIO1E (she never did become notable for anything besides writing the letter), yet her whole life was after the editorial, so it wouldn't make sense to put information about her life in the 'background' section, to me. Conversely, the biographical information we include in the article about Church largely takes place before the editorial was published.
    Since the editorial's publication Virginia has undeniably attracted fairly enduring coverage that discusses her life after the editorial was published. See, for instance, 1914, 1927, 1936, 1958, 1959, 1971, 1987, 1997, 2014, 2019. So, I think we'd be remiss to cut the information about the rest of her life, but I also don't think there's much more that can be said than is in the article (there probably isn't enough room for a stand-alone article). So, I'm not sure the best way to handle it but, imo it might be the way it is currently presented. What do you think? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Think this is nearly there prose-wise. ceranthor 04:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Church section being before the O'Hanlon section, because he is the author of the editorial. The O'Hanlon section should be kept and even expanded, any information about her seems pertinent to this page. As the person who wrote and letter and was addressed in the editorial, O'Hanlon is an important historical personage in the expansion and maintaining of the tradition of Santa Claus as relates to the Christmas holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. My question was why is the O'Hanlon article at the end when the Church section is at the beginning, not the sequential order of them. Further, if O'Hanlon herself is an important historical personage, I'd like to see demonstrable evidence to support that claim, as I suspect most historical coverage has been about her in relation to the editorial but not much beyond that. Either way, my point stands; the level of detail in this section does not belong in an article about the editorial. It may be appropriate for her own separate article, but I am not sure whether she meets the notability guidelines. ceranthor 14:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the instigator of this event she is notable and relevant to this page, and facts about her life merit encyclopedic importance pertaining to this topic. She's appropriately hightlighted here. As for order, the editorial itself and facts surrounding its creation seem ordered well as, even though O'Hanlon's information could follow Church's, because of its length it serves the page well in its present configuration. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we disagree, but since Eddie891 is the nominator and on vacation I'll wait for their return to discuss the point further. Thanks. ceranthor 16:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments! I’m out of town until the 31 but will endeavor to address them as soon as I get back. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor, I've responded to your comments, mostly just instituted, with some questions. Let me know what you think. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks fine now, but I'm still not sold on the inclusion of all her biographical details. I'm willing to support, but I'll defer to the delegates to make the call with regard to the, in my opinion, unnecessarily detailed Virginia O'Hanlon biography section here. ceranthor 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor and @Gog the Mild, on second thought I've gone ahead and split the Virginia article to Virginia O'Hanlon. I think there is enough biographical information covered in RS that doesn't fit in this article. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps put "Douglas received mail about her letter throughout her life. She would include a copy of the editorial in her replies." somewhere in "Legacy"? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I've reorganized the article slightly and I think it fits better now (put it in 'Later republication'). Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]
  • Overall this looks good, so all my comments are relatively minor.
  • The most pervasive thing I noticed was logical quotation problems with quoted phrases that end with punctuation inside the quote marks. Examples include "[d]ay after day.", "the most wonderful piece of writing I ever saw.", "[r]eal literature.", "enduring inspiration in American journalism.", "the nation's best known.", "phony piece of writing.", "[w]rite if you want to,", and "anything back,".
This is, of course, entirely permissible if the same punctuation occurs in the original, otherwise not. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the sources and corrected the ones that were incorrect, leaving the ones where the same punct is in the original.
Thanks. FWIW, keeping punctuation at the end that is in the original is technically allowed, but hard to understand for those who aren't looking at the sources. Don't be shocked if some wikignome eventually "fixes" more of these. But that's not an FAC problem as such. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of MOS:LQ is that this is required, rather than [technically] allowed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was slightly confused to read that the editorial was "in the paper's third and last editorial column that day", but then see a list of three subjects that came before it. Was it fourth, or was there one item that discussed two topics?
Rephrased to "third and last column of editorials" does that make sense? There could be multiple editorials in a single column (or not)
That is more clear (to me at least), thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later republication" section includes a book "based on" the editorial and illustrated children's book. These both sound more like adaptations than straight republications, and as such would belong in the "Adaptations and legacy" section instead.
Moved, good call
  • The title of that first book, Is there a Santa Claus?, should have a capital T for there.
Done
  • I didn't review the citations generally, but it caught my eye that notes 30 and 31 (as of this writing) include quotations from the sources. Is there some reason quotations are needed? The claims being sourced don't seem likely to be contentious, and I didn't spot anything on the Talk page suggesting a need for quotation of these sources.
cut
  • I typed up another comment then noticed it contradicted one of the suggestions you were given by another commenter, and it's too minor a point to hassle you with conflicting feedback. So you get this mysterious allusion instead. :-) --
Go on! We like a good reviewer fight. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, RL0919, responded to the above to the best of my abilities. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replied only where relevant. It looks good to me now, so support on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus/archive1&oldid=1131398222"