Talk:Sunshine & Health/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "1933 until 1963" infobox says last published in 1968.
 * ✅ (infobox param corrected)
 * "has been described as" by whom?
 * By the cited source (Hoffman). My understanding is that in-text attribution isn't necessary in cases like this where the source can be determined by looking at the corresponding footnote. And the documentation at Template:According to whom basically accords with this.
 * "distributed through the mail" by subsscription?
 * "the Post Office" be clear, was it the United States Postal Service?
 * ✅ (though the term was already wikilinked to US Post Office)
 * "Supreme Court" link.
 * "in a favourable" to whom?
 * To the magazine. I was hoping that would be clear. Do you have suggestions for alternative wording?
 * Based in "New Jersey[1]" this should be in the lead and also the main body, and referenced there rather than in the infobox.
 * . I added a sentence about this to the body. I don't think it's important enough that it also needs to go in the intro section. It's only mentioned in passing in both of the most in-depth sources on the topic.
 * "At the launch of the magazine" where and when was it launched?
 * I added a reiteration of the debut year to this sentence. Sources don't specify a location for the magazine's offices at its debut. (Both sources that mention the New Jersey location only do so in reference to the timeframe of the early 1950s.)
 * "A.B. " -> "A. B."
 * "it is believed that " speculation, unless someone you can attribute said this?
 * The cited source says this
 * "The magazine attempted to gain ..." unreferenced sentence.
 * ✅ (added citation)
 * "Supreme Court victory in Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield" repeat the links from the lead in the main body, so here Supreme Court and Summerfield.
 * "The magazine included a combination" unreferenced single-sentence paragraph.
 * I don't think this statement requires a citation. See What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not
 * "publication SUN Magazine" what was this magazine about?
 * I think the quote that follows makes this clear (i.e. it was another nudist publication)
 * "were described as" by whom?
 * The same judge to whom the previous quote was attributed. I could add in-text attribution to state this, but I'm not sure it would be an improvement, because a) the focus of this section is the photographs and other content of the magazine, not the judge, and b) the sentence is cited to the same court decision that is used to cite the earlier blockquote - so the reader should be easily able to determine the source of the quotes.
 * "The judge noted that cover photos...." missing ref.
 * "Legal troubles" can we avoid single-sentence paragraphs here?
 * I know some people have a stylistic aversion to them, but I don't think they're in violation of any of the WP:GACR.
 * Again, is "US Post Office" actually the United States Postal Service? Link.
 * "Post Office" is the epithet used by all the cited sources, not "Postal Service". But I added a second wikilink.
 * "Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield" title should be in italics.
 * Same in external links.
 * "penis... clearly" non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
 * "per curiam decision" decision should be in the link.
 * "On the same day, the court" unreferenced.
 * I don't think this statement requires a citation. See What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not. (In this case, the relevant facts are easily verified by just following the link to the article about the other decision.)
 * "1958-1962" en-dash.
 * "1947-58"" likewise.
 * Instead of double quotes (ref 3) using apostrophes within quotes.
 * Ref 6, avoid CAPITALISATION.
 * "per curiam decision" decision should be in the link.
 * "On the same day, the court" unreferenced.
 * I don't think this statement requires a citation. See What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not. (In this case, the relevant facts are easily verified by just following the link to the article about the other decision.)
 * "1958-1962" en-dash.
 * "1947-58"" likewise.
 * Instead of double quotes (ref 3) using apostrophes within quotes.
 * Ref 6, avoid CAPITALISATION.
 * "1947-58"" likewise.
 * Instead of double quotes (ref 3) using apostrophes within quotes.
 * Ref 6, avoid CAPITALISATION.
 * Ref 6, avoid CAPITALISATION.
 * Ref 6, avoid CAPITALISATION.


 * Thanks for the feedback. I think this is ready for another look. See above for inline responses. Colin M (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be pretending that Wikipedia is a reliable source and/or forcing readers to chase from article to article to verify facts, but it's not worth arguing over, so I'll promote. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)