Dump months has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 24, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dump months received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Dump months appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 January 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Since I have paragraphs and paragraphs to go but can no longer fend off sleep on this snowy evening, I am saving a couple of possible sources here for my next section so I don't have to re-Google them:
Daniel Case ( talk) 07:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk)
10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Next, on to Stability assessment. — Cirt ( talk) 11:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article edit history = Daniel Case, can you please look over these latest unsourced new changes by IPs, what's going on there? — Cirt ( talk) 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Didn't know we did stability review now as part of GA. Not a bad idea though. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: Please respond, below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (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. | I'm counting at least twelve (12) uses of pull-quote boxes, large amounts of blockquotes, and excess use of quotations. Please try your best to transition these out via trimming, paraphrasing, and the one little blue pull-quote box can stay. :) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes, good use of overall structure and presentation. | |
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. | Please add cite for end of first paragraph in Causes sect. And also please add cites to back up assertions at ends of each of the statements in the Notes sect. | |
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). | See above re verifiable issue. Please strongly consider using archiveurl and archivedate fields to back up with Internet Archive to increase posterity. I would say at least do this for web-based publications, eg Box Office Mojo. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Relies primarily upon secondary sources. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good use of structure and composition, covers main aspects quite well. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Wouldn't want to have the article size get too to much bigger, but the current size is perfect. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Indeed, article presents in matter-of-fact, neutral tone, throughout. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Please answer stability questions, as noted, above. | |
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. | Passes here, per above. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Passes here, per above. | |
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold for a period of Seven Days. — Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
NOTE: Please respond, below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Good luck, — Cirt ( talk) 07:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And in that department ... while it actually proved more useful than I thought it might be at first, the fact remains that it seems to have been designed mainly to detect large-scale copypasting rather than tell whether the level of quoting is acceptable. Obviously that decision must ultimately fall to human editorial review, but a tool that took that more in mind could probably be developed easily with some (I imagine) trivial tweaks of the code, to consider only text within quotation marks or in quotation templates, and to assess what percentage of the article is in those marks, and how much text interpolates between quotes.
Thank you. That is all. I will probably take a short break today from working on this to attend to some things on Wikivoyage and Commons; I will resume tonight with adding sources to the notes and converting them per your Fuck example. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Although for any straightforward paraphrasing, I feel I'm within limits moving the quoted material into the "quote=" field of the citation template, as I think we should make it easy for the reader to assess, via popup, whether the paraphrase was accurate (Does the Copyvio detector consider inline text only?). As a whole, strongly encouraging paraphrasing over direct quotation leaves Wikipedia dependent on the ability of its editors to do the former competently, and there are too many ArbCom cases and AN/I disputes on that issue for me to be totally confident in that department). We really need some more explicit policy guidance on this rather than just leaving it to the trenches at FAC. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides, COPYVIO is a poor choice to link to for specific guidance on how much of a quotation to include beyond " excessively long". Nor does WP:NFCC concern itself much with quotes. People write pages like QUOTE to fill the gaps until we make policy or guidelines on them. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
But we're getting away from the specifics of this page. Enough Daniel Case ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Expert Guy notes, "here are some facts we want the reader to know." He further states "some more facts of interest".Those are the kind that tend to be superseding (imo) as opposed to true fair use. Fair use, remember, is concerned with critical analysis and commentary of the material being used, which in this case is the quote itself. Using quotes to analyze and criticize another topic is treading an oily tightrope of transformation.
Comment: I've consulted with Moonriddengirl and Crow and they both seem to strongly agree with my assessment discouraging excessive quotations and blockquotes in articles, especially those seeking GA status. I'm sorry you are being resistant, Daniel Case, but let me please assure you that I highly value your Quality improvement efforts to this project. And also let me tell you that I, myself, used to be quite resistant in the past to removing quotations and instead paraphrasing. When I finally realized the benefit of doing so, the articles I worked on began to look much better for it. I hope you will realize the same. I'll give you a couple more days to work on the article to address above recommendations. Good luck, — Cirt ( talk) 04:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Daniel Case:, are you all done responding to above recommendations? Ready for another evaluation? — Cirt ( talk) 03:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There were some that I could not do this for, however. Some New York Times links tend to confuse archive when they request a login, BoxOffice's website seems not to get archived by archive.org, and USA Today apparently does not let archive archive its pages. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed as GA.
I see a significant amount of improvement by Daniel Case.
This is to be commended !
My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above.
— Cirt ( talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dump months. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this article should mention that Split is a rare exception of a well-received movie that came out in January, although it was first shown at film festivals in September and November the year before. -- Fladoodle ( talk) 19:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Dump months has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 24, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dump months received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Dump months appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 January 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Since I have paragraphs and paragraphs to go but can no longer fend off sleep on this snowy evening, I am saving a couple of possible sources here for my next section so I don't have to re-Google them:
Daniel Case ( talk) 07:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk)
10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Next, on to Stability assessment. — Cirt ( talk) 11:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article edit history = Daniel Case, can you please look over these latest unsourced new changes by IPs, what's going on there? — Cirt ( talk) 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Didn't know we did stability review now as part of GA. Not a bad idea though. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: Please respond, below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (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. | I'm counting at least twelve (12) uses of pull-quote boxes, large amounts of blockquotes, and excess use of quotations. Please try your best to transition these out via trimming, paraphrasing, and the one little blue pull-quote box can stay. :) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes, good use of overall structure and presentation. | |
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. | Please add cite for end of first paragraph in Causes sect. And also please add cites to back up assertions at ends of each of the statements in the Notes sect. | |
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). | See above re verifiable issue. Please strongly consider using archiveurl and archivedate fields to back up with Internet Archive to increase posterity. I would say at least do this for web-based publications, eg Box Office Mojo. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Relies primarily upon secondary sources. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good use of structure and composition, covers main aspects quite well. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Wouldn't want to have the article size get too to much bigger, but the current size is perfect. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Indeed, article presents in matter-of-fact, neutral tone, throughout. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Please answer stability questions, as noted, above. | |
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. | Passes here, per above. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Passes here, per above. | |
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold for a period of Seven Days. — Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
NOTE: Please respond, below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Good luck, — Cirt ( talk) 07:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And in that department ... while it actually proved more useful than I thought it might be at first, the fact remains that it seems to have been designed mainly to detect large-scale copypasting rather than tell whether the level of quoting is acceptable. Obviously that decision must ultimately fall to human editorial review, but a tool that took that more in mind could probably be developed easily with some (I imagine) trivial tweaks of the code, to consider only text within quotation marks or in quotation templates, and to assess what percentage of the article is in those marks, and how much text interpolates between quotes.
Thank you. That is all. I will probably take a short break today from working on this to attend to some things on Wikivoyage and Commons; I will resume tonight with adding sources to the notes and converting them per your Fuck example. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Although for any straightforward paraphrasing, I feel I'm within limits moving the quoted material into the "quote=" field of the citation template, as I think we should make it easy for the reader to assess, via popup, whether the paraphrase was accurate (Does the Copyvio detector consider inline text only?). As a whole, strongly encouraging paraphrasing over direct quotation leaves Wikipedia dependent on the ability of its editors to do the former competently, and there are too many ArbCom cases and AN/I disputes on that issue for me to be totally confident in that department). We really need some more explicit policy guidance on this rather than just leaving it to the trenches at FAC. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides, COPYVIO is a poor choice to link to for specific guidance on how much of a quotation to include beyond " excessively long". Nor does WP:NFCC concern itself much with quotes. People write pages like QUOTE to fill the gaps until we make policy or guidelines on them. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
But we're getting away from the specifics of this page. Enough Daniel Case ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Expert Guy notes, "here are some facts we want the reader to know." He further states "some more facts of interest".Those are the kind that tend to be superseding (imo) as opposed to true fair use. Fair use, remember, is concerned with critical analysis and commentary of the material being used, which in this case is the quote itself. Using quotes to analyze and criticize another topic is treading an oily tightrope of transformation.
Comment: I've consulted with Moonriddengirl and Crow and they both seem to strongly agree with my assessment discouraging excessive quotations and blockquotes in articles, especially those seeking GA status. I'm sorry you are being resistant, Daniel Case, but let me please assure you that I highly value your Quality improvement efforts to this project. And also let me tell you that I, myself, used to be quite resistant in the past to removing quotations and instead paraphrasing. When I finally realized the benefit of doing so, the articles I worked on began to look much better for it. I hope you will realize the same. I'll give you a couple more days to work on the article to address above recommendations. Good luck, — Cirt ( talk) 04:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Daniel Case:, are you all done responding to above recommendations? Ready for another evaluation? — Cirt ( talk) 03:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There were some that I could not do this for, however. Some New York Times links tend to confuse archive when they request a login, BoxOffice's website seems not to get archived by archive.org, and USA Today apparently does not let archive archive its pages. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed as GA.
I see a significant amount of improvement by Daniel Case.
This is to be commended !
My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above.
— Cirt ( talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dump months. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this article should mention that Split is a rare exception of a well-received movie that came out in January, although it was first shown at film festivals in September and November the year before. -- Fladoodle ( talk) 19:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)