Talk:Dump months

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Future sources[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dump months/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  1. File:January 2014 movie marquee.jpg = image photographed by nominator, hosted on Commons, perfect!
  2. File:Feb 2013 blizzard 5882.jpg = picture from Commons, no issues there.
  3. File:Back-to-school sale at Wal-Mart, Newburgh, NY.jpg = another photograph by nominator, great work!
  4. File:Chaplin The Kid 3.jpg = commons photo, no problems with image page.
  5. File:Old Burying Ground, Lexington MA.jpg = commons picture, no issues here.

Next, on to Stability assessment. — Cirt (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stability assessment[edit]

  1. Talk page inspection = Green tickY
  2. Article edit history =  Not done

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)[reply]

@Cirt: Sorry to not have acknowledged you so soon ... my day was busier than I thought it would be. It looks to me like those changes reflect changes made to source page at Box Office Mojo since I wrote the article—yes, that's what they are. I'll put that source up ahead as well so it reflects the adjusted opening-weekend gross for Hotel Transylvania 2 as well.

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)[reply]

Stability = part of WP:WIAGA. I just do it piecemeal sometimes as it helps break up the review and makes me feel like I'm taking it on in smaller chunks. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hold[edit]

NOTE: Please respond, below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (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. 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)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hold for a period of Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first graf of "Causes" is really just a prefatory graf. I've always felt that these are like intro grafs, since they just summarize info presented in greater detail below. But of course I'll put some cites in.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I can probably see how maybe I went a little heavy on the block quotes (I do feel that using quotations, at least at some length, helps maintain readability, as it offsets the necessary dryness of our prose style). Is there some guideline somewhere as to how much would be good to use? I've heard people talk about this but I don't know if there's anything set in stone.
 Done I reintegrated all the block quotes with the text. Saved about 3K. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will use the archiving fields. Thanks.
  • As for citing for the notes, I would do that but I've never quite figured out how to include cites in "notes" without creating a separate section (Inline, perhaps?). Often they're sourced to the same source as the sentence they're in anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once I get to FAC they're always usually quite tough on having too many quotations. Best to avoid them at all whenever possible. That way, when they're used, it's sparingly, and for good reason, and thus that particular quote in the article is all the sweeter and highlighted more. As for notes, see an example of how I did the coding at Fuck (film). — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt:So, you think this one has FA potential? Good ... I hoped so. I will be getting down and dirty with this later in the week; I'm trying to finish another one I started recently and I should be done within a day. I'm not neglecting this; don't worry. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess after my various trials and travails, I tend to review with the end goal of FAC in mind, yes. But I try to be much more lenient in my GA Reviews than when looking at FACs. Please keep me posted, here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: This is  Done. After another short break (I have to prepare for my work this evening), I will be adding archive fields to sources (something I've already been doing with the new sources and some adjacent ones). Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, keep me posted when all done with everything. — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One last note: Please, consider reviewing two (2) WP:GAN candidates, for every one that you nominate. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation for copyvio issues[edit]

  1. I've done a brief reevaluation with regards to copyvio.
  2. The article still has major issues here.
  3. The blockquotes part looks much better.
  4. I used the Copyvio Detector linked to at top right of GA Toolbox on this GA Review subpage.
  5. Copyvio Detector results = https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Dump+months&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
  6. Copyvio Detector analysis = "Violation Possible 63.4% confidence".
  7. Copyvio Detector says there are nine (9) sources with over 30 percent confidence of copyvio.
  8. Best way to address this is to trim and/or remove and/or paraphrase all quotations in article, to get each of those results down to below 30 percent, please.

Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The tool says the topmost results now are at 30.1%. Considering it picks up some uses of titles and similar phrasing such as "the first two months of the year" which can't be said any other way, really, outside of quoted matter, I think that we can account for that extra tenth of a percent as a reflection of the tool's imprecision.

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)[reply]

@Daniel Case:Looking much, much better! Feel free to update on this page when you feel everything has been addressed. — Cirt (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: Thanks. Do the results say which nine sources are overexcerpted? And, side note, we shouldn't call it copyvio as much as "fairusevio" ... the level of quotations used when we began this review was, I think, well within conventional U.S. law exceptions for fair use as criticism and comment; certainly in an academic paper or magazine article they would not meet resistance on that ground. When we say "copyvio" here, we mean that it violates our policies on the use of third-party copyrighted material, usually. On that ground I can understand and work to change things.

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)[reply]

Addendum: I see WP:LONGQUOTE suggests it's OK to move the quotes into the footnote for exactly the reason I gave. OK. Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm afraid I must disagree, and also disagree about moving large amounts of quotations into footnotes. WP:LONGQUOTE is an essay, but WP:COPYVIO is site policy. — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not planning to move full-length quotations into footnotes, just those where paraphrasing is necessary (something I've always done).

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)[reply]

It also makes for bad writing quality -- giving the impression the writer can't write the article themselves, and must string together a bunch of quotes from one quote to the next, and present that as an article. Not saying just here, but in general. — Cirt (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But by the same token, where different points of view are at issue (not here), letting parties state them in their own words is better for the reader.

But we're getting away from the specifics of this page. Enough Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi all, sorry I didn't get to comment here yesterday... darn RL creeping in. Just to expound somewhat on what Cirt mentioned, and my approach towards quotes vis-a-vis copyright. In general I like to see quotes supporting the prose in the article, and not just supplying new content by themselves. The test I use is: Does the quote provide content or context. Put another way, are we using the quote to back up something we wrote in our own words, or are we using it to supply the information we want the reader to have without writing it ourselves? Providing content as opposed to context treads the line on copyright and transformation (another wonderfully complex yet vague concept which basically tests if the material is serving the same function as the original ("superseding", which is bad), or if you are using that material in a different way such as discussing the quote itself or using it in support/argument for or against some other point (transformative, more acceptable)).
  • Much of the quoting here seems to be in-line, as part of sentences describing the concept. The Etymology section, while the quoting to me seems a bit much, does better fulfill the support/context role than some of the later uses, which seem to mostly/muchly be of the form 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.
  • Just my 2 cents from the copyright trenches. Crow Caw 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Content vs. context" ... I like that way of looking at it. To be honest, when I printed this out and copy edited it before what turned out to be peer non-review, I remember thinking, "you sure you need all these quotes?" That's why another pair of eyes is always good. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Reevaluation by GA Reviewer[edit]

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)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks. Don't think I'm resisting ... I am doing the work, after all. As (supposedly) William Faulkner famously said of rewriting, "you must be willing to kill all your darlings". I wouldn't have gotten this far as a writer if I didn't accept that. And thanks for the extra days. Weekends have been of late a time when I get limited access to my computer as my son comes home and wants to hog it since he doesn't get the chance to with his school's computers (What are they trying to teach them these days? ). Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Trust me, I've been through worse situations at WP:FAC before, and struggled through accepting changes that (at first) I may not have agreed with, but by the time the articles got to WP:FA, I came to appreciate that the various recommendations made the articles much higher quality for them. Also -- If you need more time than that, just ask ! :) Best, — Cirt (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case:, are you all done responding to above recommendations? Ready for another evaluation? — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: I'm working on adding the archive fields to the references that don't have them. This may well take me all the limited time I am likely to have available this weekend. But if I'm done before Sunday night, I will let you know as soon as I can. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, keep me posted. — Cirt (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: I'm ready now. Glad I did the archiving. Not only were there two notes that 404'ed, I was also able to update some information that had gotten outdated, and finish a cite that for some reason I hadn't originally (it also provided a nice short quote ).

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)[reply]

Oh, I'm most glad your efforts improved the page, Daniel Case. Yeah, no worries there's some that can't be archived. I'll take another look soon. — Cirt (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

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)[reply]

That's sort of an "exception that proves the rule". Movies that made festival lists are usually seen as somewhat decent and come with higher expectations, even when dumped in January. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dump_months&oldid=1207055766"