Talk:Fuck/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA nomination failed when not all concerns were addressed in time

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 Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


There is no fucking way I can pass up a chance to review this :P. Expect initial comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the lead section.

Lead[edit]

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested changes to the lead - not sure about the paragraph I added, but I think it does a decent job. Also, should the derivatives of fuck, and other words in general, not be italicized throughout the entire article? I wasn't aware that was the proper style - but good to know. (sorry if I'm stepping on your toes here with the review, if you'd like me to hold off on making edits until you've completely finished, just lmk) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Those instances shouldn't be italicized either unless they're titles of major works like books, movies, TV shows, albums, video games, magazines, or newspapers. The lead also looks better now. Same goes for the general word "fuck" itself. I'll go into further detail on subsequent text once I have a chance to assess it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offensiveness[edit]

  • "The word is considered obscene but is commonly used in many informal and familiar situations." is unsourced and doesn't add much anyway, so I'd scrap it
  • See my previous comments on not italicizing "fuck" or any derivatives. Same goes for "cunt", "users", and "usage".
  • Having super short paragraphs is frowned upon because it makes the text look choppy. With that in mind, perhaps you could merge the last one with other text in this section.

The rest will most likely be assessed section-by-section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for tracking, I've completed these. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

  • Perhaps you could move the first sentence here into the "Germanic cognates" subsection below

Germanic cognates[edit]

  • Again, improper use of italics here. Everything else in this subsection looks fine.

False etymologies[edit]

  • Of all the terms here that are italicized, it was only used properly for Car Talk and the book The F-Word.
  • "Several" is an ambiguous term that is best avoided, especially if more specific descriptions can apply
  • "Yet another" → "Another"
  • The final two sentences need to be cited.

I'll let you go through these before I continue the review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, requested changes have been made. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. You forgot to remove italics for the page title and the opening sentence, though. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, oops, done.
Not really relevant to this, but shouldn't italics also be removed at articles like The? I actually can't find a "articles about words" in the MOS. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... MOS:WAW says words should be italicized. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through that page, my understanding is that it doesn't so much apply to article titles as it does for translating terms within article text (e.g. "Deuce means 'two'.") I may have misinterpreted something but this is my best guess. With that in mind, we can keep italics for the non-English terms like "ficken" and "focks" while removing them from "fuck" and the article title. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the impression I got from it, nor the use I've seen in other articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Now moving on.....

Grammar[edit]

  • I don't see the quoted examples in what was provided (you appear to have substituted it with other terms used), and am not sure Salon is the best source to use anyway.

"Early usage" shall follow in the future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salon is considered opinionated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but it should be fine to use here. I don't think the examples there are too synthy, since it's all from the same source. I did improve the sourcing on the other statement, though — was previously a YouTube video (and despite first impressions, The Toast seems to be reliable, and Gretchen McCulloch a subject-matter expert). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early usage[edit]

  • The quote "They are not in heaven, because they fuck the women of Ely" is nowhere to be found here, and neither is its pre-translated version
Looking at this one, it looks like the source was "Revising the F-Word". I removed the other source and made it clear that this one is the source. However, I can't easily track this down so I can't actually verify the content. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll need a separate citation for "The stem of fuccant is an English word used as Latin: English medieval Latin has many examples of writers using English words when they did not know the Latin word: 'workmannus' is an example."
Done - removed the example and added a better explanatory Wikilink w/ appropriate ref. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same goes for the unsourced line from "Brash of Wowing"
Done - though it's a primary source. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you in advance that "Rise of modern usage" can be safely merged with "Modern usage". In the meantime, here's more to work with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of modern usage[edit]

  • See previous comments on merging
  • It isn't worth having two tiny paragraphs. That just makes the text look choppy, so I'd merge them.
  • I don't see "cunt" mentioned here
Merged. The issue with sourcing on that Oxford statement is actually somewhat significant - I've marked it as failed verification: "the source and archive link are different. the source seems to imply "fuck" was added in 2008, with no mention of "cunt". the archive link is to a paywalled page, and useless, but implies the content behind the paywall, which we do not have a current link to access, may have been accurate" I'm going to look into this more and try to find an alternative source - otherwise, I'll change the mention to remove "cunt" and say it was listed in 2008 - which is what the source currently claims. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After a significant amount of research, I've found no RS that can actually back this up - and the linked source didn't even agree with the claim, and the entire thing seemed to be bordering on WP:SYNTH, so I removed the paragraph altogether. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern usage[edit]

  • The entire second paragraph is missing citations, and the sentence "Most literally, to fuck is to have sex, but it is also used as a more general expletive or intensifier." also needs to be referenced.
  • Not sure abbreviations should have italics. Either way, spell them out.
Added some refs, still need to ref "While neither dysphemistic nor connected to the sexual connotations [...] interjection, noun, and pronoun." Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This says nothing about porn and only says what "MILF" stands for, not any variants.
Fixed. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for its first two sentences, most of the third paragraph is unsourced
Removed the list of comedians (what, are we supposed to include a list of every comedian who uses the word?) and added more info + a ref for Carlin. Still need a ref for the two preceding sentences (about WTF, STFU, MF etc). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added refs for the rest of this paragraph. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source is saved on archive.org. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when I'll get to the subsections of this, but the above needs fixing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I'll be working on these fixes over the next few days. Sorry about the lack of response, I have been kinda busy, but I am still working on this - and I appreciate your continued patience. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I myself have also admittedly been occupied with other things both outside of Wikipedia and on it, though haven't by any means forgotten about this review. More to come within 48 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of more recent usage[edit]

  • When the first two paragraphs are so short, they may as well be merged to form a larger one.
  • This mentions "fuck" and "fucking", but doesn't discuss the use of "fucked"
  • Perhaps you could link to EMI and Grundy incident somewhere within the "Controversy ensued in 1976 when Today host Bill Grundy interviewed the Sex Pistols, after guitarist Steve Jones called Grundy a 'dirty fucker' and a 'fucking rotter'" sentence.

Up next will be "Use in politics". Thankfully not much seems to be wrong with this subsection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues in this subsection have been fixed. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use in politics[edit]

  • Is the "Fuck is not widely used in politics, and the use of the word by politicians often produces controversy. Some events include:" part really needed?
  • Not sure these should be presented in list form.
  • "(1965–67)" should be "(1965–1967)" when four digits are preferred for years as more complete and professional
  • This link isn't loading for me
  • No mention of George Thomas here (at least from what I could find)
  • This might sound like splitting hairs, but Cheney is only quoted as saying "Fuck yourself"; no instance of "Go fuck yourself" was mentioned
  • "The exchange referred to the newly appointed CEO of the recently opened Cross City Tunnel toll road within Sydney." should be moved to come in between the previous sentence and its accompanying citation
  • New York Post doesn't have "The" in its title
  • I don't see how John McCain's temper is really relevant here
  • Don't WP:EASTEREGG "a fellow MP", and just mention Jonathan Coleman by name
  • "He apologized shortly afterwards." seems trivial
  • You forgot both instances of "uh" from the "fucking golden" bit, and I see nothing that pertains to Valerie Jarrett or selling a Senate seat appointment
  • "He’s unable to provide" from "He’s unable to provide a coherent answer" should be "He's unable to provide" per MOS:CURLY
  • "When I read the EU condemnation" isn't included here

This has me somewhat worried about the article's quality. Nevertheless, I'll continue with "Use in marketing" and the rest of the content sooner or later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use in marketing[edit]

  • "French Connection produced a range of T-shirts with messages such as 'fcuk this', 'hot as fcuk', 'mile high fcuk', 'fcuk me', etc." is missing a reference
Added a ref. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how brief the first two paragraphs are, I'd say merge them to avoid choppy flow. Maybe even make all three of this subsection read as one larger paragraph.
  • Sorry to nitpick, but "light-coloured" is used, not "light in colour".

The next three subsections ("Band names", "Holy fuck", and "F-bomb") will probably be assessed in one go whenever I review them given how brief they are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues here are fixed. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Band names[edit]

  • Not sure what calling genres "more accessible" is supposed to mean, but it regardless doesn't read very well.
  • It would help to list examples of bands who use "fuck" in their names.
Done, added some examples that were used in the article with the source. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy fuck[edit]

  • "Usually vulgar" seems like an incomplete sentence.
  • Are you not able to expand on the use of this phrase?
@SNUGGUMS: Worse - after tracking down the original source, it actually doesn't mention "holy fuck" at all, nor can I find good other sources for it. I've removed the section, since it's probably undue (not really covered in the context of the word fuck, after all). Wondering what to do about Holy fuck now - the use in the phrase is obviously still the primary topic. I think maybe rephrasing the dabpage would be sufficient (and adding the {{redirect}} to the top of Fuck). Thoughts? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable removal. For the record, there is a band named Holy Fuck, so you can redirect it to there at least for now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the page that was at Holy fuck (disambiguation) back to Holy fuck - I think that makes more sense in this case (I noticed the old RM, but I really struggle seeing how the interjection is the primary topic given just how little RS coverage is has - the disambiguation page makes more sense). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

F-bomb[edit]

  • This doesn't mention any H-bomb comparisons.
Ref added. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's more for you. Looking back into earlier text, the use of "most notably" for Carlin's 7 dirty words is inappropriate WP:POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very in-depth review so-far and your patience as I try to get everything in compliance. So far, I've addressed every concern except for the "use in politics" section, which I'll get to over the next few days, hopefully. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

  • Only listing The Big Lebowski for TV censorship isn't much, and only counts for editing it out of films. You should add music examples (perhaps for radio as well).
  • The paragraphs here seem kind of short. Are you sure both are enough to stand on their own? I might change my mind after seeing an expansion.

Nearly there! I should get the rest in my next batch of comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common alternatives[edit]

  • Don't link to sections of this article as you've done with "F-bomb"
  • The TV examples need to be referenced. I'll allow citing specific episodes per Template:Cite episode if that's the best you can use (perhaps with accompanying quotes).
Done and removed. This stuff, on consideration, was cruft that probably shouldn't stay around. Open encyclopedias, what a joy. (I've also added another ref for the usage of fsck) Elli (talk | contribs) 07:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

  • This seems rather cluttered. I'd try to limit the listings to terms that specifically involve the word "fuck".
Removed some. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Don't use italics for Dictionary.com, YouTube, ABC News, Fox News (which shouldn't read as "foxnews.com"), Reuters, or BBC News
  • Names of publications like newspapers and websites shouldn't be used in the same field as article titles (e.g. ref's 71, 72, and 73 make this mistake). Put those in other parameters within the references.
  • "Ala.org" should read American Library Association
  • "People.org" → People
  • Turn "Inquirer.net" into Philippine Daily Inquirer
  • Italicize The Boston Globe
  • "www.gawker.com" → Gawker
  • "www.thestar.com" should be Toronto Star

Further reading[edit]

  • Unless cited within the article, I don't see a point in having these listings
Removed. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

  • I only recommend using this like Dictionary.com or maybe Wikitionary here when they'd give broad definitions for the term
Removed all the non-sister project links and the (pretty useless) bar. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • Prose: Needs some work
  • Referencing: Not all text is adequately referenced, and some of the citations are improperly formatted
  • Coverage: I'm sure you could add more on censorship
  • Neutrality: As far as I can tell, this isn't any POV
  • Stability: Nothing of concern
  • Media: The one image used is appropriately licensed
  • Verdict: Beginning now, the article is on hold for seven days. I believe you can resolve my remaining concerns within that time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SNUGGUMS: yes, I'll do my best, thank you for the very in-depth review! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. Even when it takes longer to get through, I do like to be thorough when reviewing GA nominations as that overall helps improve the article more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey snuggums, I'm really sorry to be asking this, but this ended up lining up kinda poorly with my midterm exams, so I might not be able to finish all the improvements by the 10th. I'd very much appreciate if you could give me a few days of flexibility (sorry). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try to get as much done as you can beforehand. My main concerns right now are the improperly attributed text within the politics section and censorship needing expansion. I might make some adjustments (nothing too big) to speed things up depending on what you can accomplish, but we'll see what happens. Extensions aren't feasible either way when (by my own admission) I already took quite a long time to even finish reviewing the text. That would just be dragging it on even further. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, Elli, one advantage of this review concluding within the next couple of days (whether it passes or fails) is that you'll have more time to focus on your exams and preparing for them. I'd hate for this to interfere with your academic performance. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS makes sense, and I don't blame ya, just letting you know of the situation. The politics section should be decent easy to cleanup (already done some, but I'm doing more - trying to remove excessive instances, as well as poorly-sourced ones, and improving the sourcing) and censorship a bit harder - but I think it can be done. I'm working on exams today so I'll probably do the rest of the stuff tomorrow. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Just for the record, I corrected some formatting with these edits. Those aren't major changes as far as I'm concerned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS thanks!
btw, for Dictionary.com - I was going off of what {{Cite Dictionary.com}} did (but since that only supports a certain section of the site, I subst'd the template and modified the target). Elli (talk | contribs) 07:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The politics and censorship sections do still need work, and it's probably best I don't fix those myself as that could make me too involved with changing the article. Get done what you can. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but when the required changes unfortunately haven't been made soon enough, I'm failing the nomination. Feel free to renominate at GAN once you've expanded on censorship and properly attributed all content pertaining to politics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:54, 10 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuck/GA1&oldid=1011293858"