Talk:The Cincinnati Post/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this within a week — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNUGGUMS (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Regarding all the redlinks you removed, I understand the need to pare out links for non-notable topics, but if a person or publication is notable enough to someday have an article, it should be linked. If Clay Wade Bailey and Richard A. Boehne aren't notable enough for an article, they probably don't belong in the "Notable former employees" list in the first place. Meanwhile, entire books and journal articles have been written about the (Chicago) Day Book, so definitely deserves a link. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wound up writing an article about the Day Book anyways. Carry on. :^) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the extreme delay. I am drafting the review, and was caught up with other things. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the review.....
Infobox
  • Remove "The Kentucky Post" from the top- it's best for the infobox to match article title
     Not done Especially in the later years, the newspaper's identity had shifted to The Kentucky Post in most of its coverage area. The Post is in somewhat of a unique situation due to their "bundling" strategy (described in the article). – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to have both E. W. Scripps Company and "Scripps-Howard Newspapers" in "owner" field, just use one or the other
     Done Clarified Scripps-Howard Newspapers as a division of the E. W. Scripps Company. The masthead identifies Scripps-Howard as the parent company, but the E. W. Scripps Company is what's notable enough for an article. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2 Should be outside of the ) in "circulation" field per MOS:REFPUNC
     Done This was a bug in {{Infobox newspaper}}; it's fixed now. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
Early years
  • "The Post" → The Cincinnati Post
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paper moved to Home Street"..... I would give detail on the location of Home Street and why the paper moved there
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Penny Paper" → The Penny Paper
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "E. W. Scripps estimated daily circulation at 7,000 in the city and 6,000 in the countryside, before countryside distribution was discontinued" is unsourced
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "avoided the usual dispassionate approach to religious matters"..... is "usual" really the best term to use?
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to include what influenced the name changes
     Done The Penny Post was intended to be more distinctive than The Penny Paper, which simply described an entire category of newspapers. Stevens reports that no reason was given for the change to The Evening Post; he speculates that keeping "penny" in the title would've been unsustainable given rising paper costs but notes that the price remained at one penny until 1918. Given that The Kentucky Post launched right after the change to The Cincinnati Post, I suppose the name change was intended to differentiate the two publications. Also, at some point (can't tell when), the Post began putting out Saturday editions in the morning rather than the evening. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "E. W. Scripps and his half-brother George H."..... I'd either use "George H. Scripps" or simply "George" here
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crusader for reform
  • "launched a campaign against Col. Tom C. Campbell"..... either remove "Col." or use "Colonel" in full
     Done Also wrote Thomas C. Campbell. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is "In 1889, Scripps put the Cincinnati Telegram" referring to E.W., George, or James?
     Done E. W., but McRae also takes credit for the scheme, so I changed it to "the Post". – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Boss" from "Boss Cox himself"
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Post's frequent reports of collusion would at times decimate advertising revenue but, on the other hand, would prove immensely popular with readers, so that the paper always turned a profit"..... quite a lengthy sentence, and reads awkwardly
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the paper's editorial position was reliably conservative"..... what is "reliably" supposed to mean in this instance?
     Done I changed it to "uniformly" and attributed the statement to the source, Stevens (1969). Does that help? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give some specific names when mentioning "In the 1960s, the Kentucky Post dominated the newspaper market in 12 Kentucky counties"
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation
  • Is "boomed" the best word choice to describe sales?
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the use of "by far" in "beating out The Times-Star Company and Tribune Publishing by far"
     Done They won by 71% and 81%, respectively. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "folding" mean in "folding the afternoon paper into the Post"?
     Done The pun was unintentional. :^) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "majestic" in "which operated out of the majestic Cincinnati Times-Star Building" is POV
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments in "Crusader for reform" regarding "the paper's editorial position was reliably conservative"
  • "Combined Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post circulation peaked at 275,000 in 1961, including nearly 60,000 for the Northern Kentucky paper"..... something about the first part seems incomplete, maybe The combined circulation for Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post peaked, and then specify what statistics the figures 275,000 and 60,000 refer to.
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joint operating agreement
  • "As the more viable paper"..... I question the POV of "viable" in this instance
     Done I watered down the statement. "Viable" is the word the source uses. The context to this section and the one above is that the afternoon newspaper market as a whole had become unsustainable. After all, it was the Post that had secured a "failing operation" classification from the U.S. Attorney General. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which also offered Internet access subscriptions. Both papers' websites moved to Cincinnati.com in August 1998" needs to be cited
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to include why the papers downsized from broadsheet format to Berliner format
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and closure
  • Too many short paragraphs, merge some of them per MOS:BODY
     Done, although I prefer to keep paragraphs as focused and deductive as possible. – Minh Nguyễn 💬
Legacy
  • This section title is misleading as it doesn't describe the paper's influence. A more accurate title would be "aftermath".
     Done Merged the section with surrounding sections. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:BODY discourages really short paragraphs, so this section's contents should be merged into one paragraph
     Done Merged the section with surrounding sections. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, KYPost.com began redirecting visitors to WCPO.com" needs sourcing
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable former employees
  • "Notable" is a POV description
     Done Renamed to simply "Contributors". But there is some danger in eliminating "Notable" from the section title: people lists tend to accumulate plainly non-notable people over time. That's why articles about schools and TV stations typically call this section "Notable alumni". "Alumni" sounds weird for a newspaper, but this newspaper is defunct so there's no need to emphasize the past tense. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image used isn't really needed
     Not done Per WP:PERTINENCE: "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." This article could use a few more visuals, especially towards the end. This particular photo is relevant as it includes some of the Post's star contributors, which is the point of this section. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the listed members are missing citations except for Clay Wade Bailey, Russel Crouse, William Greider, Michael Kelly, Earl Lawson, Alicia Reece, Eugene Walter, Gary Webb, and H. T. Webster.
     Done I had compiled this list mainly via Special:WhatLinksHere/The Cincinnati Post but failed to go back and add citations for each item. In doing so, I discovered that one of the articles, James W. Faulkner, was erroneous. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • FN1: Link The Cincinnati Enquirer and Gannett Company
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: Publisher for The New York Times is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.
     Not done From Template:Cite news/doc: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited." Sulzberg is not a company. (On the other hand, the documentation does discourage including "New York Times Company".) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: Is Cincinnati CityBeat a reliable source?
    I'd argue that it is. CityBeat has been publishing weekly – on paper – for 20 years. Its articles have been cited by published sources such as [1][2][3][4]. CityBeat isn't a blog, even though its website kind of looks like one. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: Link E. W. Scripps Company
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: Unlink Gannett Company (only needs to be linked in first ref using term)
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21: Same as FN2, though unlink the terms in this ref
     Not done See FN2. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN's 29, 33, 37, 40, and 43: Remove "via Google Books"- it is not the publisher of works
     Not done "Via" comes from the |via= parameter in {{cite book}}; see Template:Cite book#Publisher. It is intended to indicate the site or subscription database that hosts the work, not the publisher. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN's 46 and 60: Same as FN2
     Not done Same as FN2. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN54: "City Wise" should read "Cincinnati" and not be linked
     Done – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN57: Remove "United Press International"
     Not done Why? {{cite news}} supports an |agency= parameter for indicating the wire service. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 12:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN61: Same as FN4
    See FN4. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN63: "Cincinnati.com" should read The Cincinnati Enquirer (but not be linked)
     Not done It isn't technically part of the Enquirer, but rather a promotional page aimed at advertisers and produced outside of the paper's normal editorial process. I supplemented it with an actual story from the Enquirer. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN72: Same as FN's 29, 33, 37, 40, and 43
     Not done Same as FNs 29, 33, 37, 40, and 43. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further Reading
  • Since I'm not sure whether "Cincinnati CityBeat" is reliable, probably best to remove the link to it used here
     Not done See above. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A History of The Cincinnati Post" has a HARVref error as there are no inline citations using it, so I'd remove this one altogether
     Done |ref=harv removed. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
External links
  • "The Cincinnati Post" link has a connection error, and isn't really needed to begin with, so I'd remove it
     Question: SNUGGUMS, which link is giving you a connection error? The tool reports two errors: one loads just fine for me and the other isn't even linked in the article. (The tool apparently doesn't know how {{Wayback}} works; the archived URL loads fine.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
  • Well-written?: Could use a copyedit, and currently fails MOS
  • Verifiable?: Not up to par
  • Broad in coverage?: Almost
  • Neutral?: Needs POV cleaning
  • Stable?: All recent work has only been to construct the article
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?: For File:The Cincinnati Post, Farewell Edition.jpg, I would fill in the "n.a." fields of the FUR. Picture of city copy desk is unnecessary.
  • Pass or Fail?: I'm very sorry, but this is being failed as there are too many issues with the article right now to put it on hold. "Notable former employees" is particularly problematic. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, thanks for such a thorough review. (It's my first GA nomination, so I appreciate the time you spent on it.) I'll address the various issues piecemeal and respond to individual points above. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, though this is going to take extensive work to meet GA standards. After addressing the above, I suggest putting this up for WP:Peer review and get lots of input there before renominating. I will finish at that, and wish you luck in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cincinnati_Post/GA1&oldid=1089154676"