Talk:Stewards Society/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Etriusus (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a fun one, comments should be done by the end of the day. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written

The drama, the intrigue, I can't lie this was quite entertaining! I did a hefty copyedit (which, by the way, watch out for "would" being used for past tense). Otherwise, I have surprisingly little to say:

• Revisit the infobox, namely the "Legal status" and "Purpose" paramaters

 Done.

• Perhaps link "service fraternity" instead of just "fraternity"

 Done.

• The name collectively refers to a handful of loosely organizationally tied groups that have existed since the Stewards Society's founding in the 1980s — perhaps: "that have existed since the First Stewards Society", as otherwise, it's a bit self-referential.

 Done.

• The White Rose was loosely compared to Steward Throat — by who?

 Done.

Verifiable with no original research

A variety of reliable local papers are used, student papers are sometimes used as sources, but this is okay per WP:RSSM. No copyvio issues during my spot-check, paraphrasing is used well, and Earwig shows a solid score of 24%, namely to attributed quotes and long titles.

Thanks!!

• Consider removing or re-sourcing Higher Ed Dive. It's a publication of Industry Dive, which is already of unknown reliability. However, it's use is quite minor, and relativitely uncontroversial, so I'll leave this as a suggestion

 Done.

• More of a priority, could you mention the "Society of Stewards" in the body, as it is currently only in the infobox?

 Done, that was some damage left by a vandal a long while ago. I suspect it was a Steward (Probably not but I can dream.)

ah, why am I not surprised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

• Feinberg, Lawrence (February 28, 1988). "Secret Stewards Disbanded on Georgetown Campus". The Washington Post.
  • Can't find the "undertones of conservative religiousness, and.. anti-modern(ism)" quote, but looks good otherwise.

Oops, dropped a source on accident.  Done

• Shapira, Ian (March 14, 2013). "Secret society is again at center of an uproar on Georgetown U. campus". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 2020-10-28. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
  • Looks good Y

• "Stewards: The Best Secret Society GU Can Offer'". The Hoya. October 27, 2000. Archived from the original on 2022-09-24. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
  • They never explicitely say that the plaque contained the logo, just that the logo could be seen in the corner of their paperwork. Looks good otherwise.

Clarified, added an additional source to fix this.  Done

• "Secret Societies Unveiled (Again) At Prestigious Campus". HuffPost. March 15, 2013. Archived from the original on 2022-09-24. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
  • Looks good alongside The Post Y

• "Viewpoint: Speaking for the Second Stewards Society". The Hoya. March 6, 2020. Archived from the original on 2022-04-08. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
  • Looks good Y

Broad in its coverage

I don't have much to say here, a look at Google News shows that everything major is in use. I couldn't find anything in Newspapers.com, nor in any books, except for a mention in Facing Georgetown's History. The Hoya has done a lot of coverage, but I'm comfortable with how it's limited to only when necessary. This Esquire article could be a lighthearted add to the "Reception" section, but I wouldn't call it critical.

 Done, added a little blurb

Neutral

A touchy subject, but I believe the article does a nice job at attributing the exposés and presenting the responses.

Stable

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

The two keys are symbolic of the society and are your own work. I don't think we could get many more images than that.

Summary

@Etriusus: courtesy ping, what an interesting rabbit hole! Great work so far. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

oh, and please go at your own pace! we have lots of time to close out the review. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser, thanks for the review!! I've been busy these last few days and will likely get to it tomorrow evening. I glad you liked it though, it was a fun article to write. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser, should be everything. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the fixes (and the addition). I'm now happy to pass this article, well done! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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.