Talk:Johanson analysis

First Draft
Grand&#39;mere Eugene, I'm moving the discussion here for the article. Thank you for looking over the article for me and your excellent clean-up. I will work tonight on getting some incoming links. I'll also check for typos etc.


 * Grand&#39;mere Eugene, I think it's ready to submit. I'll wait a bit, to let it percolate. Let me know if you have any comments. And thank you muchly for mentoring me on this one. Best -- JacDT (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's close to ready, but I would like to take today to complete some reference checking. I'd like to go over it once more, thoroughly, to verify there are enough secondary relible sources to meet WP:GNG. I can move it to article space later today. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. But I'd like to do the move and submit it myself. I worked for some time on this article, had to leave it when life happened (husband died, I got cancer), then came back to it. Now it's finally almost done, so I'd like to usher it through to the end. If you let me know when you finish your checks, then I can submit it. Also, it there's anything else you'd like me to check, let me know. Thanks! JacDT (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So sorry! I just moved it to article space and then saw your note above. My condolences on your husband's death, and best wishes for your recovery from cancer. You should definitely list it as an article you created on your userpage, as my contirbutions were (by comparison) mostly minor cleanup edits. It's a great addition to WP, and you can be justifiably proud. Really good work! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a procedure for listing pages I created? Or do I just say I created this page? And thank you for your kind words. The doctors tell me the cancer is gone. :-) JacDT (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There is not any official procedure, you just list it on your userpage. For your article on MaryAnn Johannson, set up the draft by typing "Draft:MaryAnn Johanson" into the WP search box, and follow the directions when it returns no results. At the top of the page, in Visual editor use the "Insert" button to add the template for a draft article and (at the bottom) add the references template. Let me know if you need help. Again, so sorry I moved it without checking with you. – Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Done! And no problem about the move. I was probably being overly sentimental anyway. (And did you notice I used that nifty command you showed me on your talk page to move over the thread? :-D)? JacDT (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Johanson article
In writing this article, investigating references, and looking up links on Wikipedia, I realized MaryAnn Johanson is cited many times by articles here on Wikipedia and her reviews appear in newspapers all over the country and abroad, also Rotten Tomatoes and so on. I'm thinking she should have an article here on Wikipedia. When we finish this one, perhaps I will write that one as well.


 * I just tried to set up a draft page for MaryAnn Johanson. Apparently she used to have a page and it was deleted. From the discussion I found, one editor gave a long comment about why it shouldn't be deleted, but the other editor wanted it deleted. The reason given was that the references weren't of Wikipedia quality to verify notability. I haven't seen the deleted page, and this was from some years ago, but certainly in 2020 plenty of good references exist to establish notability for this critic. My guess is that the original Johanson page didn't follow established formats, with the proper tone etc. Johanson is an outspoken feminist critic with renown in that field as well. I think it's important she have a page. The editor who argued against deletion of her original page suggested changing the name to the FlickFilosopher, as her web site is known. I don't know if that is the right idea or not; I think she ought to have her own page just as Alison Bechdel and the Bechdel test have separate pages. I've left a note at the Teahouse project to see if someone there would be willing to come over and take a look. I've also posted in the Wikiproject | Women page. JacDT (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Had an excellent response from SusunW at the Wikiproject | Women page. I will get to the Johanson page after submitting this draft. JacDT (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential copyvio analysis
Hi, I just ran Earwigg's Copyvio Analysis and as a result modified the Statistics section to use a quote box attributing the copy to Johanson. I'm not sure what to do about other phrases describing her criteria, but for longer phrases we should be using quotation marks along with the citations that are already there. Could you please review the Earwig report and make some choices about paraphrasing or useing direct quotes? I should have checked this earlier, but I think the remaining phrases can be easlily modified or quoted. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Grand&#39;mere Eugene, thanks for checking that. That looks like a useful tool. It is saying the text that describes the categories for the analysis come too close to the text the describes the categories for the analysis on the Johanson site, yes? I'll see if I can paraphrase more. I'm not sure how good of an idea that is, though; the descriptions should be accurate. If it looks like it's diluting the description, I'll try adding quotes. JacDT (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JacDT. I think quoting text is probably a better soliution in some instances, because the terminology is specific to her criteria. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In a few places especially. But how do I do the quote so Wikipedia registers it properly? I put in quote marks, but the Earwig reports still rates it as an uncredited match. Also, it's still listing the statistics section as a copy even though you cited it as coming from Johanson's site. JacDT (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Rigt. When reviewers use Earwig, its limitations are acknowledged regarding legitimately quoted material--Earwig does not recognize quotation marks. So the rating may remain high, but when the comparisons are checked in detai, judgments about copyvio take into account whether reported phrases are properly quoted and cited. You are doing good work at a very detailed level! – Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah! Good to know. I did manage to paraphrase most of the quotes. For the statistics, I think an extra line got added. When I took that out, it put it the Earwig results at 33%, which made it that nice green color. JacDT (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)