Talk:United States' Telegraph

United States' Telegraph has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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: December 7, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).

A fact from United States' Telegraph appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the chief editor of the United States' Telegraph allegedly gouged a rival reporter's eyes inside a Senate office?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States' Telegraph.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 20:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the chief editor of the United States' Telegraph gouged a rival reporter's eyes inside a Senate office? Source: Smith, Kenneth Laurence (1981). Duff Green and the United States' Telegraph, 1826-1837, p. 70 https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3580&context=etd
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Stonewall Inn

Created by Generalissima (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 39 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This should be interesting. I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Wonderful work! I enjoyed reading this (I just love old newspapers! ). Looks good to go. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact does sound interesting, but unfortunately, according to Fletcher M. Green in "Duff Green, Militant Journalist of the Old School," Duff Green "denied that he was armed or that he gouged Sparhawk's eyes," and it doesn't help that it was Sparhawk who made the original charge. There's not much of a way to prove that this for sure happened, so a different hook might need to be picked unless I can for sure confirm that this truly happened. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to ping @Generalissima and @BeanieFan11. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not just "that the chief editor of the United States' Telegraph allegedly gouged a rival reporter's eyes inside a Senate office?" Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm a bit reluctant still, but I suppose it works better. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article/citations would need to be adjusted accordingly Generalissima. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2024 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States' Telegraph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder for review, comments coming in the weekend. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full Review

"It was first published in 1814 as the Washington City Gazette by Jonathan Elliot..." The first section seemingly says that it was cofounded by Elliot and two other editors. Looking at the two cited sources here, Elliot was the only editor and news printer but was a cofounder with two associates (not necessarily editors unless stated otherwise). You should adjust the information in the lede and first section accordingly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably wouldn't hurt to say that the British sack of Washington was part of the War of 1812 for context. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the Jackson campaign indirectly purchased the newspaper." I don't think "indirectly purchased" is the right phrase here. Just say that Jackson, Eaton, and Lewis arranged the newspaper purchase for a future campaign or something like that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Either at the end of the second page or the top of the third began the editorial section, featuring a headline column or open letter, followed by various shorter editorial columns." The sentence flow is a little hard to follow here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Later important deaths were simply memorialized by the addition of black borders to columns, without expansive eulogies in the text." I don't really see an indication that this is a "later" thing. Also, I think that it should be specified to "deaths of important political figures." PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting that the Telegraph never apologized for attacking Louisa Adams personally, but that's up to you. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Green was heavily rewarded for his resolute support of Jackson during the campaign..." Rewarded how exactly? PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The paper's new anti-Jacksonian stance lost it the support of Jacksonian postmasters it had previously relied to circulate the paper." I'm guessing you mean "cost" and not lost, right? PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Overall a good read, and I've basically already done a spot check. Let me know when you've addressed all of these above points, and then I can go ahead and promote the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima When you're ready, let's continue this, please. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimalMustelid: Apologies for the delay; implemented your suggestions. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, checked the revisions and the article looks good now. Passing, and good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2024 (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.