Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Frogs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

How do I source a book? Thank you for any help. Sea Captain Cormac 23:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Cite book. gobonobo + c 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:31, 17 June 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Frogs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gobonobo (talk · contribs) 21:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

What an interesting article! I will review this soon. I grew up in Connecticut and simply couldn't pass this up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    No issues with this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    A few minor concerns I raised have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    References look good, apart from a minor error with the sole further reading entry, which includes a publication location but no publisher. Should be an easy fix for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    I am satisfied with the reliability of the sources in the article and the density of inline citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Good, per spot checks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    The CTMQ source comes up, see [1], but the text in the article was written two years before the CTMQ article, so they plagiarized from Wikipedia. Nothing else comes up as a concern. Will evaluate in source checks but otherwise a pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    We have discussion of the event, its aftermath (including differences in various accounts), its legacy, and possible explanations for the phenomenon. I believe this checks all the boxes as far as broad coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Not a concern. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Having given the article a read-through, I am satisfied this criterion is met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Not an issue here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Everything is easily public domain apart from the frog bridge photo, which is under an appropriate license. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    I appreciate the effort put in to illustrate a difficult topic to portray with photos, since there obviously aren't any contemporaneous photos to be had. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think this meets the criteria now. Congratulations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Be consistent, is mill pond two words or one? You use both in the first section.
Fixed. Going with mill pond.
  • What makes CTMQ a reliable source? From its about page, the author is very clear that Disclaimer: CTMQ is not, in any way, associated with any museums or other places discussed on this website. Nothing here is official, nothing is to be taken as gospel, and nothing should be used as your top resource for any museum, trail, restaurant, etc. I’m just one guy having some fun. This would appear to therefore fall under the category of a self-published source, putting its reliability into question. In any case, you should be able to substitute a reliable source for the material it is cited to.
I've pulled the CTMQ source.
  • Watch for instances of WP:WEASEL, such as According to some accounts.
  • Herpetologist should be linked to Herpetology as an uncommon word.
Linked.
  • police shoulder patches incorporate the town seal, which includes a frog in its design Wouldn't it be easier to just state that a frog is included in the town seal?
Reworded.
  • The one sentence in the first part of the legacy section about the frog bridge seems irrelevant, given it has its own subheading later within the same section.
Removed the sentence.
I will continue this review soon. Apologies for the longer than anticipated delay in getting it started. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Trainsandotherthings. No worries. I haven't done one of these in a long time. I appreciate your review. gobonobo + c 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks

I checked references 3, 7, 13, 22, and 27. These were not randomly selected, but intentionally chosen as the references most used in the article.

  • Reference 3 (Lawyers and Bullfrogs), everything checks out. Pass.
  • Reference 7 (Nocturnal Sounds) is actually a guest post authored by Julianne Mangin, who should be credited as an author as well as Pad Padua.
I've switched the author to Mangin. It looks like it was merely posted by Padua, so I've removed their name.
Windham became the laughingstock of the colonies is a little too close to the source language of Windham became the laughing-stock of the colonies. I realize this is one sentence, but our rules on WP:CLOP are rather strict.
Not sure how to reword this, so I've added quotes.
The article mentions a song called "Good Old Windham Flip" but the song is not named in the reference.
I've added a reference to the piano score.
Other instances of this reference check out. Please address the items identified.
  • Reference 13 (The Frogs of Windham)
The claim about fabricated blue laws is not supported by this source. I remember seeing it in Lawyers and bullfrogs. Please check for text-source integrity and cite this claim to the proper source. Other instances of this source pass verification.
Added a reference.
  • Reference 22 (A Froggy Place in History)
Everything checks out here.
  • Reference 27 (Frog Notes of Windham), reference is dead and should be marked as such.
Done.
All good.
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[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 Lightburst talk 02:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Detail from banknote
Detail from banknote
Piano score for the Frog Chorus
Piano score for the Frog Chorus
Improved to Good Article status by Gobonobo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 120 past nominations.

gobonobo + c 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was nominated for DYK within 7 days of reaching Good Article status. Article is over 1,500 words in prose and is well-sourced. Earwig picked up a copyright violation of 44.8% with "violation possible" as a status, but most of the detected violations were just the phrase "Battle of the Frogs" or quotes that were already properly cited. AGF on print sources. ALT0 is a good hook and the image associated is great. Image has no copyright violations as it is public domain. lullabying (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying and Gobonobo: I went to confirm the hook {citation 10) and there is no page number - it was on page 4. Some other sources also have no page numbers. For accuracy can you add the correct page numbers to sources? If it is a matter of multiple pages you could use a system like this {{r|Weaver|p=4}}. I think it is a source=to=text integrity issue per WP:DYKCITE. Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Thank you for catching that. I've added an inline ref for that sentence from the Paper Money source, which goes into more detail. I've also added page numbers where I could. gobonobo + c 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Note to the promoting administrator that earwig is not working for me. Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Number of frog statues[edit]

How many statues of frogs are there at the bridge?

Early in the article, we read, ‘known as the "Frog Bridge" for the four enormous copper frogs that perch at each corner.’ Most likely, “each end” is meant, and that would give eight. I myself think of bridges’ having indeed four corners, i.e., two at each end, as in a phrase such as “the SW corner of the bridge.” That would give sixteen, but I am no pontifex.

Later in the article, we read, “The bridge….features four 11-foot (3.4 m) tall copper frogs atop giant concrete spools on either side of the bridge.” Does that give eight again?

Retracting slightly my remark about pontifex, I build the bridge in my imagination with four frogs in total.

Thanks to the people who produced the article. Entertaining.

Walter Turner 217.252.138.207 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@217.252.138.207: Nor a pontifex am I. It should be four frogs, total. Manny, Willy, Windy and Swifty. I've adjusted the wording, hopefully lifting that fog of uncertainty. gobonobo + c 05:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Frogs&oldid=1232331357"