Talk:Sybil (cat)

Assorted early comments

Is Sybil a mouser? I thought she was just a pet. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the term 'mouser'. --Philip Stevens 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is out of date - Sybil has now retired. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132039/A-country-life-No-10-cat.html. RandomPedant (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious death of Sybil!

Sybil died strangely young and nobody investigated? The world needs to know what happened to this cat, we demand answers! 2A02:C7E:280B:8600:1084:27B3:FB89:F7DA (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail

@Nikkimaria Just to let you know why the Daily Mail source is there: I am aware that it is an unreliable source, which is why I put it into a note, talking about the Daily Mail's article, not using it as a reference of fact. I even said this in the edit summary: "(I have referenced the Daily Mail here; I am aware that this source is deprecated, which is why I have pushed it into a footnote. The source is being used to discuss the Daily Mail's report itself, which is allowed: the exception is "when the source itself is the topic being discussed", so we should be fine here.)". It was simply to illustrate that the animal in question did not die in Edinburgh, but as I couldn't use the Daily Mail as a source, that was my work-around, to include all points of view. Additionally, we should treat the sources on a source-by-source basis; quoting WP:RSPSS "[t]he Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context." Hope that's fine with you, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, that doesn't work - this approach to "include all points of view" means that you're citing a claim about the subject rather than about the Mail. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria The note said "The Daily Mail had previously reported"; deliberate choice of words there. It doesn't mean that what DM reported on was true, it simply means that the Daily Mail, as a newspaper, reported on something. If, however, you are against it? Not the end of the earth. Just means the article isn't as comprehensive as it could be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that adding "X reported" changes a factual claim about a third party into a legitimate ABOUTSELF exception. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria - Right. But what I suppose I'm saying is: the source backs up the claim that the Mail reported on the subject of the article, not verifying the actual fact they presented. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the argument you're making, I just don't agree that it is in keeping with the RSPSS note. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria - Alright. But, the question I'm really asking is, do you think that we can make an ad hoc exception here; also, whilst the Daily Mail's headquarters are, I'll admit, stuffed with of morally compromised journalists, would they really lie about the whereabouts of an animal? All I'm attempting to explain with the source is that Sybil died in London, not, as The Independent said, in Edinburgh. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't we already have three sources saying that? What is the benefit of making an exception to add this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria - It was to clarify that whilst Alistair and Margaret Darling had intended to return Sybil to Scotland, it ended up not happening. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah - so you're not trying to cite the factual claim of the cat's whereabouts, but actually the intentions of her "people". Using a reference that attributes these intentions only to an unnamed source close to the cat. That seems much more questionable than the location claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Forget it; I'll find another source. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I admit I'm having some trouble. What would you say to changing the wording of the note to "The Daily Mail had previously reported in January that "[t]he Darlings hope at some point to have her [Sybil] back in Edinburgh.""? That way we would have a direct quote, avoiding claiming anything in wiki-voice. Sound fair? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that doesn't address my concerns. But you're welcome to start an RfC to see what the wider consensus might be. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sybil (cat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 01:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Initial assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   I copy edited the article and made some other style edits.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Moved some cites around to better fit the claims being substantiated.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I see there was a dispute about citing the Daily Mail, but that it is not cited in the current version of the article. Are you foregoing citing the publication at this point?

@Voorts - I think so at this point, yes. Unless you'd allow this article to cite the Daily Mail as an exception, I don't think that'll be happening. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I would fail the GA under 2.b. if the article cited the Daily Mail. If you still want to include a citation, we can keep this on hold and you can try to reach consensus on the talk page of the article; if you go that route, I'd recommend getting an opinion at RSN first. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts - In that case, I won't cite the Daily Mail at all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. I have no other issues and I will pass the article shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Fair use rationale looks good.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

2. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Final assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Per above discussion.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 25 June 2023 (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.

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 Bruxton (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 2007, chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling's cat Sybil met Margaret Thatcher? Source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/723173174/
  • ALT1: ... that HM Treasury sent "souvenir photos" of Sybil to people who had written letters concerning her wellbeing? Source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/753527712/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Tim O'Doherty (talk). Self-nominated at 16:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sybil (cat); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)