Talk:Boneghazi/GA1

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 11:07, 31 January 2025 (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

Nominators: Tamzin (talk · contribs) & theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this shortly. I use the GA Table and make most of my comments below the table so it is easier for nominators to respond to my feedback. I usually start with assessing images, stability, and sources then move on from there. I am fine with nominators responding to my feedback as it is given or all at the end. If you have any questions feel free to either ask me here or leave a message on my talk page! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The prose in this article is phenomenal. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 11:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All relevant sections of the MOS are complied with. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	reflist exists. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	I checked the following sources and found no issues: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. No unreliable sources were used. I do have one question about the sources which I noted below. Love that the references also look nice which isn't apart of the criteria but always nice to see. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Only thing copyvio is flagging is the quotes which is to be expected. Based on my read through of the sources and the article, there is no plagiarism. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers all main aspects of the topic. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.	the one photo is tagged appropriately. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photo is relevant and has suitable caption. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	As outlined above, all GA criteria have been met. Always a pleasure to work with Tamzin and Leek. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 11:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes should be sourced, is there a reason why your notes don't have citations? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For criteria 1, 3, and 4 I usually read through the article carefully and provide feedback as I read. This often looks like me suggesting things be reworded, asking for further explanation etc. Oftentimes I will ask questions about the article that come from a place of not being educated on the topic. Sometimes these questions don't have answers or don't result in any changes needing to be made. I ask these questions so I can better understand the topic and thus better provide feedback. Throughout this process, I often make small changes to grammar or punctuation. I try to make these changes by section and if you disagree with any changes I make feel free to revert them! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense: Just checking in where we stand here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to both you and leek, I have been busy with finals and some off-wiki stuff. I truly try not to keep nominators waiting this long. I will get on with my review in the next day. Thanks for checking in! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 23:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all good :) looking forward to hearing from you after finals! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finals are luckily done, sigh of relief, so expect some feedback today! Thanks for understanding! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense: Okay, I think we've replied to everything! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

This is technically optional but I'd argue this kind of falls under list incorperation and prose. I won't fail the article if you don't change this but it would read better if changed. I'm noticing in the history section, you have a bit of WP:PROSELINE going on (eg: In 2015, On December 8, 2015, On December 12. This doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere but some variation in sentence structure would look nice! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they're interspersed through sentences with other structures, and any other structures I can think of would be clunkier, I'm fine with this as-is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Queer Witch Collective is one such group of neopagan witches, a Facebook group that had over 2,000 members at its peak. This sentence kind of requires me to jump back and forth a bit more than I would like. For clarity I would suggest maybe changing it to something along the lines of The Queer Witch Collective, a Facebook group that had over 2,000 members at its peak, is one such group of neopagan witches.
- Done, with some modifications :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"She provides the bones if I only take what the earth gives, and I leave offerings" of drink, honey, and flowers. I'm curious if Ender explicitly stated they leave offerings of drink, honey, and flowers or if this detail was later added? This is more of a personal curiosity than feedback but there may be feedback depending on your answer. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in Tourjée, just not the same bit that's quoted: 'Are you making any sort of offering or payment at the graveyard, to the dead or the spirits of the land?' one user questioned. 'I bring drink and honey and flowers,' Darling responded. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that makes sense I just wanted to clarify! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first, other members reacted positively, although with some concern about the legality of Darling's actions. -> At first, members reacted positively, although some had concerns about the legality of Darling's actions.? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that when recomending prose changes like this they are usually just things that jump out at me and it is up to you if you choose to change it. I will explicitly note if I believe the prose is somehow against the criteria. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moderators defended Darling—who, while white-passing, is described by Vice as a "witch of color"—under their anti-shaming rule. Optional nitpick here, it might improve clarity to say "moderators of the Facebook group" as many, younger, readers may not be familiar with Facebook. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done ("The group's moderators"). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The moderators attempted to foster discussion of the racial aspects of the dispute, but some users still left in disgust Similiar to above, and optional, but consider writing as "left the group in disgust". IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legal proceedings

In an interview with The New Orleans Advocate three months later, Darling called the search a "waste of time" and defended themself as "car[ing] more than you [New Orleanians] care about your dead", in reference to the state of the cemetery. They said of the bones that were seized: Something about this bit, whether it's the number of quotes or just how they are strung together, makes it a little hard to read. I'm going to classify this as an optional piece of feedback as it is not badly written or written in a way that prevents me from understanding the content, however, I'll try to explain what's making it a bit hard to read while also suggesting some changes. The first sentence, In an interview with The New Orleans Advocate three months later, Darling called the search a "waste of time" and defended themself as "car[ing] more than you [New Orleanians] care about your dead", in reference to the state of the cemetery. I would suggest maybe splitting in half just because the quotes really make this sentence a little bit too lengthy. Maybe something along the lines of In an interview with The New Orleans Advocate three months later, Darling called the search a "waste of time". In the same interview they defended themselves as "car[ing] more than you [New Orleanians] care about your dead", referring to the state of the cemetary. Additionally, They said of the bones that were seized: just doesn't sound quite right to me. Maybe something along the lines of In regards to the bones that were seized they said:. Overall these changes are mostly preference and there is nothing wrong with the prose here I just wanted to throw this all out there for you guys to think about! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a whack at fixing this one a bit differently; I put their reaction next to others' reactions after the blockquote, which I think makes both sentences flow a bit more cleanly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 11:03, 31 January 2025 (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.