Talk:Body piercing/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Matthewedwards : Chat 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'll be reviewing this article against the Good article criteria. I have already checked it against the "quick fail criteria", and it passes that, so I will now begin the "review proper". This may take me up to two days, so please be patient :)
I will be back soon with a complete review. All the best, Matthewedwards : Chat 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- I would expect the Lede section to be larger for an article of this size. The Lede is supposed to present an overview of the entire article, and there should be something in the Lede that can be found in each section and sub-section of the article. I'd like to see it be at least two paragraphs, but preferably three. See WP:LEDE for more info
- There's no need to wikilink common terms such as Europe, Italy, Spain, England and France and North America, West Hollywood, England again, High school,
- "France — spreading as well to North America — until" follow WP:DASH, either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes
- There are a couple of "parastubs" in the "Reasons for piercing" section, notably the first, fourth and fifth. Is it possible that they can be merged with the others?
- Other than that, I found the prose to be very good.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR):
- The first three sentences of Ear Piercing appear unsourced. I'm assuming that ref 5, the book, covers them, but it wouldn't harm to repeat the reference a couple of times
- All online sources appear to verify what is written in the article. WP:AGF on offline book references.
- The short book references appear to be incorrectly formatted. According to WP:CITESHORT, they should include year of publication and "p." or "pp." before page numbers
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The article has decent sized sections about ear, nose and lip piercings, but just a four sentence paragraph on nipple and genital piercings without images. Each section should ideally be of similar size, and there should be an image too, remembering that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Good
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Nothing to note
- 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):
- Image captions are good . All images are tagged as being in the public domain or licensed with correct CCs, excpet for the Alicia Silverstone image, which has an appropriate Fair Use license.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- I found this to be a good article, it just needs a few tweaks before it can become a WP:Good article :) The nomination is on hold for seven days to allow the article editors to address the points made. Good luck! Matthewedwards : Chat 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thank you very much for the thorough review. I will attend to these issues over the next day or two. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- The lead section has been expanded, hopefully balanced.
- I have made a go at removing overlinking; I'm not always sure what constitutes a common term. :) Please let me know if you think I need to do more pruning here.
- em-dashes with no spaces.
- Merged brief paragraphs in "Reasons for piercing" into larger groups.
- Have repeated ref 5 in "Ear Piercing" section. The first two sentences are actually something by way of a mini-lead to the rest of the paragraph. Is it advisable to replicate some of those refs, say, in the first sentence or do the specific statements with refs suffice?
- I have corrected the short book references and also cleaned up referencing in general, attempting to cap or de-cap as indicated at the various citation templates.
- The nipple and genital piercing section is, unfortunately, briefer because there is just less reliably sourced information to be found on historical practices of this. I have repeated some of the earlier information, though, and pulled some other material from a later section into it. And I did find a little bit more to include. My goal was to avoid over-Westernization of the article by using international and/or historical images in the earlier history sections, but there are no usable images of nipple or genital piercings I've been able to find from non-western cultures. I've incorporated an image that, though Western, seems suitable enough for this section and less like a stray from the "Growing popularity in the West" section. I hope that it seems reasonably balanced at this point.
Again, I appreciate your thorough review. Please let me know if there are additional issues (or inadvertent new ones :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. The article looks pretty good now. I made a couple of script edits with regards to formatting and stuff, and I'll see if I can find any other common terms. There is one other thing that needs addressing, and that's Ref 79, about a soldier's tongue piercing from The Jerusalem Post. Right now the link redirects to the site's homepage, and a search for the headline comes back with no hits. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the nipple section looks better now, more balanced when compared to the other sections. I understand what you're saying regarding recentism and western WP:BIAS, and I don't think what you've added has fallen into that trap. The image was a good choice. I think it's quite harmless, and I don't think anyone would find it explicit or offensive, or unsuitable for children or work. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of other final things. I noticed on your userpage you say you live in the US ET zone, but the article appears to be written mostly in British English. Saying that, though, I'm a Brit who's been living in America for a number of years and it's getting harder and harder for me to spot the differences, so I might be wrong! Nevertheless, I did see a few "jewelry"s and "jewellery"s, and converted the American spelled words to the British spelling. I've also tried to convert all dates in references to the British standard (dd mmmm yyyy) as opposed to the US style (mmmm dd, yyyy) or ISO (yyyy-mm-dd). There may be some dates and spellings I have missed, so please double check, otherwise, let me know and I'll run a script that converts the dates to American, and I can quickly replace all the "jewellery"s back to "jewelry" using CTRL+H in Windows Notepad.
- Page ranges in references were a bit hap-hazzard. Instead of 22-4, 234-9 or 234-39, they should be pp. 22-24 and pp. 234-239. I think I've caught them all, but again, please double check that.
- Any book references that link to Google Books need accessdate= fields filling in for the URLs
- Ref 41, the BMJ link now works, so I've updated the template
- "The Haida Indians: cultural change mainly between 1876–1970", "JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH", "3,000 piercings as 9/11 tributes", "Why is the Prince Albert piercing named after Prince Albert?", etc, etc, etc:
- The MOS says we should use Title case for all titles in references, whether or not the orginal did, (ie if the title of the book, webpage, journal, news article or whatever is originally written as "BLAH BLAH BLAH" or "Blah blah blah", we should always change it to our in-house style of "Blah Blah Blah"). editing.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_write_in_title_case has more info if you get stuck with prepositions and conjunctions
- I think that's everything, regards Matthewedwards : Chat 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sectioning for convenience[edit]
Okay, let's see:
- Ref 79: oops. Sorry! That one predated my rewrite, and I evidently forgot to verify it. I've located an archived version of the article and added a few extra for support, since it seems like a kind of extreme claim. I did move it to the end of the section, though, where it seems better placed.
- I am an American, but the article used British English when I got here and I tried to preserve it per WP:RETAIN. Since it's not natural to me, I may well have inadvertently slipped up a time or two, and if there was conflicting styles already in place I may not have noticed for that reason. I was going to translate my -ize to -ise, but according to our article, I guess I'm okay with that as is. Under "Piercings of the lip and tongue", text currently reads "several inches of diameter". I'm not sure that converting that to "several centimetres of diameter" would properly convey the scale, since an inch is more than twice the size of a centimetre. Several inches would be at minimum five centimetres. Would you recommend keeping the several inches or changing it to something like "five or more centimetres"?
- I've double-checked page ranges in references. Also, though I wondered midpoint if I was misunderstanding you, I've linked every book that was available on google books. I hit the library and interlibrary loan several times for this project and can't remember all of the books I physically handled versus the ones that I looked at on google. I know a few that physically came my way: Angel, Currie-McGhee, Miller, etc. I've used an accessdate even on those if I've been able to link them. If they were snippet view only, I didn't bother. Doing this in December and waiting to be sure it was stable may have worked against me here!
Some of my accessdate aren't showing up; for example, 85 and 86. They both have accessdate parameters filled out, and I can't see what the problem is with them. (See below; I'm asking for help with this at the help desk.)- In terms of title case, seems I messed myself up on some of those, as I changed them to accord with the examples at {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}}, most of which use sentence style capitalization. I've fixed the ones that weren't right to begin with and fixed back the ones that were.
I think that's everything. I appreciate your patience, and please let me know if I've missed something or messed something up.
Done I'll see if I can figure out through the help desk what's going wrong with those accessdates. Here's an example of four from the article.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Confusing to me, anyway. I can't see a substantial difference! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Have asked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- And received! :D Addressed. (some of the urls were missing, particularly for the journal articles, and apparently accessdate doesn't work without them.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, accessdate only works if there is an URL present. I think we're working with crossed wires now. I didn't mean that you should add URLs and access dates for every book you read or borrowed, or every source used; only reference that includes an URL need access dates, even if that URL only points to Google Books. You don't have to add an URL to a journal or book or press release (although it's handy to readers if you do). Offline references are fine, you just don't need access dates with them. Anyway, I am happy to say that I have promoted the article to WP:GA status. Congratulations on getting there, thank you for making the review process a pleasant and easy one, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! :) Matthewedwards : Chat 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- And received! :D Addressed. (some of the urls were missing, particularly for the journal articles, and apparently accessdate doesn't work without them.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: