Talk:Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) at 22:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Eddie891, I will review this article – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Prose

• Optional suggestion:

from:

"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" is a line from an editorial called "Is There a Santa Claus?". The editorial appeared in The Sun on September 21, 1897, and has since become one of the most famous editorials ever published.

to

"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" is a line from an editorial which appeared in The Sun on September 21, 1897, titled: "Is There a Santa Claus?". It has since become one of the most famous editorials ever published.

Randy Kryn revised the first sentence-- I don't know if I like the switch from "it has sense become" to "became" and it feels a little run-on now-- what do you think about this change?

Looks fine to me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Christmas folklore — avoid linking two adjacent words
  • Honestly not sure what "christmas folklore' is, so rephrased.
• vituperation page is a cross-project redirect to Wiktionary. How about linking the word directly to Wiktionary?
  • Done
• Just a minor suggestion to right align the portrait of Francis Pharcellus Church, as him facing left distracts the reader (at-least me)
  • Done By Randy
• "forgot about it." — shouldn't full-stop be outside the quotes?
  • No because per MOS:LQ, "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material"-- in this case, the source has the full stop. I just checked to be sure.
    • All right then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• contemporary New York papers → "contemporary New York newspapers"
  • Done
• The journalist David W. Dunlap — I'd remove 'the'
  • OK
• Happy to see Dewey Defeats Truman making the list!
• s the first editorial. on December 23 — erroneous full-stop?
  • yes
• in a TV — suggestion to write it as "television"
  • Sure
• Why isn't "Virginia O'Hanlon" section in the "Background" section?
  • My thinking was that most (virtually all) of the info about her is about her life after the editorial so it would make most sense towards the end of the article. It's also somewhat unrelated so I felt like it might disrupt the flow
    • Yeah. Fine then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• There seem to be lot of external links ...
  • Agreed, trimmed substantially
• Extremely high copyvio from https://www.laurinburgexchange.com/news/55772/the-rest-of-the-story, but that site explicitly says: "Compiled from Wikipedia", so no issues.

Images

• Suggesting to add ALT text to images.
  • Added
• File:Virginia O'Hanlon (ca. 1895).jpg — licence-wise okay (PD-US-expired), but how is this 1895 image an "own work"?
  • Modified licensing, definitely not the uploader's work.
• Rest, all images (including the above one) are fine!

Sources

• There are few bare urls, which should be formatted correctly.

• Expanded one, cut the bit about the plaque as lacking secondary source

• The New York Times is sometimes linked, sometimes not. In few instances, it has ISSN, in others, not.
  • Standardized to yes ISSN, no link
• Ref#3, Ref#38 — Avoid ALL-CAPS
  • Fixed
• Few references lack url-access-date
  • Verified and added date as today to those missing

Overall, it requires some work on references, rest, it is an excellent article! Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to review Francis Pharcellus Church as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Kavyansh.Singh! Responded to all your points above. I'd really appreciate it if you wanted to review Church as well. Happy new year, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year to you as well! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• De-link other newspapers/websites like The Washington Post, Antiques Roadshow as well.
  • Changed my mind and added links to all notable websites
• guides.loc.gov should be "Library of Congress"
  • Fixed
• "1897 "Yes, Virginia" Santa Claus Letter" – quoted inside quoted should take single quotations
  • fixed
• "William Conant Church (11 August 1836-23 May 1917) and Francis Pharcellus Church (22 February 1839-11 April 1906)" – there should be en-dashes to separate those dates.
  • changed
• I see that the bit about the plaque has been re-added. The bare urls needs to be formatted.
  • Replaced with secondary source

@Eddie891 – That is it. I'll pass after these changes are made. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh What do you think now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

All right then, promoting this one. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2022 (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.