Talk:Stephen Bishop (cave explorer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this up. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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.:

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:

• Refs:
  • What makes http://files.usgwarchives.net/ky/barren/obits/g/g6500004.txt a reliable source?
    •  Done It is a reprint of an obituary from the Glasgow (KY) Weekly TImes, 13 Dec, 1877 edition but since I cannot find an independent corroboration of that fact - Newspapers.com etc. was no help, I have removed that cite and replaced it with another reference. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Likewise https://www.highlightskids.com/stories/stephen-bishop-cave-explorer? (note this citation doesn't go to the correct link either as it redirects to the main page of the site)
    •  Done The highlights link is to a short children's audiobook, now available on AppleBooks but since I cannot access a printed copy at this time it has been removed and another reference is in its place. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Oops, I hit the "Save" prematurely. I am actually in the middle of getting this last reference correct and am also finishing up all the adjustments. Shearonink (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    •  Done!!! Finally...I found an error in a CUNY listing that I was going to use as a reference so then I had to find the original publication. They confused the Journal of Spelean History with the Journal of Cave and Karst Studies. Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • Can we add a bit more to this from the body of the article, as it is, it's very skimpy on any of his exploits and discoveries.
    • Will work on re-editing/adjusting the lead. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    •  Done I've adjusted the lead to include his map and being enslaved while working as a guide. Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Early years:
  • "stemming from the divorce of his possible father, white farmer Lowry Bishop" who is the "his" referred to here - Stephen Bishop or Gorin?
    •  Done Lowery Bishop - sources indicate that Lowery was Stephen's father. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Mammoth Cave career:
  • "the Pit" or "the pit"? Be consistent
    •  Done Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bishop's 1842 map:
  • "bought the Mammoth Cave Estate, including Bishop and other people from their previous enslaver, Franklin Gorin" just say "bought the Mammoth Cave Estate, including Bishop and other people, from Gorin" here, as Gorin can't have enslaved the cave which he also bought. Also, per the MOS, once we introduce someone, we just use surname to refer to them, not full name.
    • Point taken that Gorin didn't enslave the Cave. I've adjusted that sentence but have kept Gorin's full name. I would like to mention that MOS:SURNAME states "generally". The full name is mentioned once in "Early years". I thought it made sense to give the full name again since "Bishop's 1842 map of Mammoth Cave" is a completely different section. Also, I am editing to keep in mind the changing usage of enslaved/enslaver instead of slaves/owner. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Freedom:
  • First paragraph needs a source.
    •  Done Shearonink (talk)
• In Literature:
  • None of these tell us anything about Bishop himself - they are all fictional works. By MOS:POPCULT they really shouldn't be here unless there is secondary sources covering how they shed light on Bishop.
    • Pop culture/trivia sections are problematic but it seems important to me that Bishop has been the subject of at least these three works of fiction plus numerous other works as seen here in a Google Books search. Going forward towards a GA, I am unsure as to what would be best in terms of Wikipedia policy/guidelines but seems to me that Bishop's notability is certainly buttressed by the number of books and articles that have been written about him... Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I forgot to mention that I changed the header for this section to "Fictional depictions". Will that address the trivia/popcult issues? Shearonink (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The MOS guideline says "Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." which these don't meet, but I'm not going to throw a huge deal about it or fail the nomination. In fact, I'm going to pass it shortly, but it really should not have just the plain mention of some cultural mention without some sort of secondary coverage in the article here. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• I did some copyediting, please make sure I didn't inadvertently change meaning.
  • The measurement conversions changes were absolutely helpful but I would have preferred to make adjustments and changes myself - some of your changes seem somewhat according to editorial preference rather than GA criteria but Ok - it's consensus. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I generally don't bother with minor copyediting and making the nominator do it - if there are concerns with some of my changes - please feel free to bring them up here and we can discuss why I made them. Some may be preference, others are likely to be me fixing what I thought were typos. Please dont' feel you have to accept my changes - the article is fine, and all I want to do is make it finer with your help. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your concerns but let me know if there's anything else you think I should adjust/correct/change. Shearonink (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Everything but the popcult is dealt with, and I don't care to have a dragout fight about it, but it's really not meeting MOS:POPCULT right now. However, the GA criteria don't specify that MOS guideline as one that HAS to be met, so I'm not going to hold the nomination up based on that. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the article, I'll continue to improve it - yeah re: "fictional depictions". In looking over the Review I noticed that GA Criteria 1a & 1b is still stating "???". If you could update those parameters, that would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)