Talk:Illustrated Daily News

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Los Angeles Daily News (historic)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JonRidinger (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Overall it is well-written, though there are some concerns. The main issues here are first, the use of quotes. MOS has a policy of "logical quotation" where the punctuation is inside the final quotation mark for a direct quote, while it is outside the quotation mark for a word that is being emphasized. An example is "news stories reeked of naiveté and his editorials were sophomoric". Instead it should read "news stories reeked of naiveté and his editorials were sophomoric." There are several instances in the article. While it consistently has the punctuation outside the quotation, here are some that need it inside the final quotation mark: "The public be damned", and "The public be served". In the "Boddy takes over" section, the very last sentence: "leading liberal movements up blind alleys and bludgeoning them". would also need changed. It seems to occur when a quotation is used as part of a sentence as opposed to being the entire sentence.  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
   • Next there are some verb tense consistency issues. The article is mostly in past tense, but every once and awhile switches. For instance, "the Mirror would become the Mirror & Daily News (that soon became the Mirror-News) and all Daily News employees would lose their jobs." should be "the Mirror became the Mirror & Daily News (and later the Mirror-News) and all Daily News employees lost their jobs.  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
   • "Just before the primary, when Nixon, who along with Douglas had also cross-filed, sent out election materials which did not mention that he was a Republican, an ad appeared in the Daily News from the hitherto-unknown "Veterans Democratic Committee", accusing Nixon of masquerading as a Democrat, and dubbing him "Tricky Dick"—the first appearance of that Nixon moniker." I would break this sentence up into two sentences, plus change "accusing" to "and accused". I would reword the end as a separate sentence to avoid the use of the em dash. Perhaps "The ad was also the first appearance "Tricky Dick" as a moniker for Nixon. or something similar. Usually the em dash comes in pairs and interrupts a thought.  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

   • Still not a big fan of the em dash here, but it can work

   • There are some idioms present that are not encyclopedic and should be replaced. For instance, "swimming in a sea of red ink" and "rock the boat"  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
   • The day after the election, which saw Roosevelt elected, Boddy turned to his city editor and said of the voters. "They have made a terrible mistake. I helped them do it. But damn it, I had to make a living." The first two sentences should be one sentence with a colon in place of the period between the two sentences. (...said of the voters: "They have...")  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
   • I would combine the last two paragraphs of the lead since they are summarizing the same general idea. I would change "taking a mainstream..." to "and had a mainstream..." or even "after it took a mainstream..." to keep the same tense.  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

   • The rewrite was good. I would change the last sentence to read "publication of the paper ceased" (or just "publication ceased") instead of "it ceased publication" since a newspaper does not publish itself. I would also mention the paper that ends up buying it out in 1954 either as separate sentence or as part of the existing sentence at the end. Remove the mention of Nixon winning the general election (tangential fact) and combine some sentences. For instance, I'd combine two sentences to create "...when Boddy ran in both the Democratic and Republican primaries for United States Senate in 1950 and finished a distant second in both races," dropping the mention of Nixon winning the general election (not really relevant to the subject of the newspaper). I'm also not seeing the "loss of credibility" in the article body that the lead mentions. The article mentions Boddy going into retirement and profits decreasing.

   • I've  Done everything mentioned here, except the "loss of credibility" issue. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 06:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Covers the history mostly, but within the history goes over certain aspects of what the paper covered. Perhaps a mention of any other news items that were covered like sports (if applicable)?

   • Further elaborating, the mention of Nixon winning the general election isn't significant enough in relation to this subject to be in the lead, and I'm not sure it's even relevant in the body of the article. The loss by Boddy in both primaries seems to be a major cause of his loss of interest and the ultimate demise of the paper. Perhaps an "eventual winner" in front of his name or something like that if you think that point even needs to be brought up.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very balanced!

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very few edits and a fairly recent article

6. 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):

   Not applicable since there are no images. Perhaps some historical images could be obtained?  Done Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 19:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

   The addition of the cover image is great. The Roosevelt and WWII images, however, really are out of place here as they are far more decorative than educational. The images should be directly related to the subject, so a newspaper cover with something that featured FDR or WWII would be appropriate but just a picture of those subjects isn't.

   A {{Quote box}} would look alright, but a lengthy quote would have to be found or it would look wierd. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 06:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall: This has just a few minor prose issues that need to be addressed. Other than that it is in great shape. Good job!

All major areas addressed. I'm going to go ahead and promote it! Great job! --JonRidinger (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Pass/Fail:

Apologies if you wanted to carry out the changes yourself, Wehwalt, I couldn't help myself :-). 'Tis a well written and very interesting read. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I really appreciate your work, Wackywace. I'm going to lower the journalistic credibility bit, there's only a line in the book about it, and it seems more opinion than otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Would Nixon's victory in a landslide be relevant if I give the opinion of Douglas's biographer that one of the things that led to Douglas getting clobbered was Boddy's attacks on her?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be more appropriate at the Manchester Boddy article unless those attacks were made in the newspaper (which was quite common) and Douglas' biographer mentioned the paper itself. Remember, the main subject here is the newspaper, not Boddy. The main point is that the demise of the paper was at least partially caused by Boddy losing in the primaries and then losing interest in the paper. Unless the general election was also a cause for that disinterest, then it isn't really relevant to the subject. Any mention of Nixon's eventual win would need to be in passing as it's not a primary fact of importance here. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some omissions

At some point the Daily News switched from the morning to evening market. At some point the Daily News switched from tabloid to broadsheet. These two points may be the same and may involve the absorption of an evening paper, the Record. This paper's decline may or may not be traced to the launching of the Mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.123.163 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite possible, the sources I had were not complete.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dates

The dates in the introduction do not make sense. They say the paper continued until 2016 (from memory) which doesn't agree with the main text. However, when this article features on the front page for 17 August, different dates are quoted which make more sense. 86.175.202.46 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Brian

OK seems consistent now.

Interesting article - thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.202.46 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly it was vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)