Talk:The Drunkard's Progress

The Drunkard's Progress has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 3, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Drunkard's Progress appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The Drunkard's Progress suggests that a single social drink leads to poverty, crime, and suicide?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Drunkard's Progress.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that The Drunkard's Progress suggests that a singular social drink leads to poverty, crime, and suicide?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Babe Ruth Bows Out

Created by Guerillero (talk). Self-nominated at 17:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Drunkard's Progress; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Article is new enough and long enough. The images are relevant and are certainly PD given their age. The article is sensibly structured and fully cited. QPQ has been done. The hook text is good. The hook citation is not given above but the hook text is cited (to 2 sources, one paywalled, one offline) in the article.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Generalissima (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:The Drunkard's Progress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah heck, I'll do this over the next few days hopefully! Great work, this was one I was curious about making at one point but couldn't find sources. Generalissima (talk)

Criterion #1: Well-written[edit]

I don't see any prose problems, good job! It's clear prose, and I don't see any MoS violations.

Criterion #2: Verifiable[edit]

Let me check a few citations here.

Le Beau 2007, pp. 21–25
- Pretty wide-swathe of pages here, but yeah, checks out the claim that Currier and Ives were a very large lithograph firm.
Mills 1996, p. 12
- Yep! This talks about John Warner Barber's Drunkards Progress. I would note the use of biblical verses (as described in Mills) here since it ties together the Temperance movement to period Christian revivalism (quite important for understanding its emergence).
Brown 1975, p. 237
- Checks out okay!

Criterion #3: Broad in its coverage[edit]

The rest is okay, but I feel the background section is a little lacking. I think it'd be a good idea to give just a couple sentences more about what the Temperance movement is and what it sought to do; it's really hard to understand this piece without a decent grasp of Temperance being initially a Christian revivalist thing seeing alcohol consumption as a disease and sin.

Criterion #4: Neutral[edit]

Yep! Good job so far.

Criterion #5: Stable[edit]

As far as I can tell.

Criterion #6: Illustrated[edit]

Image licenses check out, all being public domain.

Overall:[edit]

@Guerillero: Just needs a tiny bit of work in the background section. Really good job so far! Generalissima (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcdiehardfan kindly provided the extra context while I was sleeping. I am going to replace the PBS website with a scholarly source, double check the source-text integrity, add page numbers for the Masters and Young (2022) citation, and make the citation consistent with the others per CITEVAR. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rad, the new background section looks good. I'm confident this now meets the GA criteria. Generalissima (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.