Talk:History of cardistry/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Reviewer: 7&6=thirteen (☎) · 00:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick cut on History of cardistry:

1. The article is well thought out and well structured. Lead paragraph might be expanded to more fully presage what is in the article.

I see you expanded this, well done! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

All links work.

2. Lots of pictures, which I considered integral and helpful. I have ~~not~~ checked them yet for copyright, etc. and they are copacetic.

Yes, both pictures are in the public domain. One is by me. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

3. I see some issues of fair use. I think the quotes (especially on some of the slights) need to be trimmed or paraphrased. See Earwig's copy violation detector: History of cardistry

My understanding have long been that any quotes under 50 words were A-Okay. I also feel that the present quotes are needed, considering both the length of the article and the first-person perspective they add. Thoughts? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

4. Article is well-cited and uses in line citations. I added some references.

Again, well done, especially the Wired note. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

5. Article is in readable prose -- I did some minor editing.

Looks good. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

6. I did minor edits on the form of the citations, which I believe are now complete. I preferred templates and SFNs, and took the liberty of adding some authors' names, etc.

I agree, looks much better. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

7. I think the article is short on the historical relationship with magic, and almost devoid of the negative reception that cardistrians received from magicians. I would like to see that section expanded.

I'll see if I have some books besides Kenner and Erdnase in my home regarding the first (or earliest documented) flourishes. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find citations for the second paragraph of the history section of Cardistry (which I added) and put that into this article? It sums up the nature of the art and the concept underlying it.

Added section and reference.

Done

8. There are a lot more pieces to the Cardistry "Canon" and they deserve more mention. Although most of this is covered in the Cardistry article, some amplification here would help.

I'll look into it. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least a basic list? And a time frame if any notable innovations came around? Or are the linked tricks enough? Let me know what you think?

9. Some mention should be made on the presence of Cardistry on YouTube, which apparently is a growth medium for the art.

Ho's quote regarding the growth of the art form through social media and journalistic coverage was the best I could pull from the Vanity Fair article. I suppose I could link a YouTube video with lots of views and use it as a source; would this be okay? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be Okay with me, but I have seen problems over this kind of citation to YouTube for statistics. One of those contradictory thingies where we don't like 'primary sources.' So somebody out there will want a more conventional WP:RS for the popularity. There has got to be more.

Added.

Fixed

10. It would not hurt to amplify on future of cardistry as some see it. Yes, I know WP:Crystal, but WP:Bold. You could also talk about the demographics of the practitioners.

I agree. Wired talks about demographics. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there aren't many women. Anybody write about why not?

90/10? Women in cardistry A good discussion, but since its a blog it isn't a WP:RS. I've put it in, however, along with another source.

Done

11. A few pertinent external links wouldn't hurt and might be useful. I recognize that Wikipedia is not just a collection of links per WP:ELNO.

I see you added external links and a further reading section. Very nice. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we put in the 5 card decks section from Cardistry, one of them can be eliminated as a link. I did that.

It would still be good to add a more conventional WP:RS talking about cards.

We are now down to one external link. If you had a really good one it wouldn't hurt to add it.

We now have four external links. I think they add to the article.

Fixed

12. There is an apparent temporal gap/void between the magic books relied upon (which are like from the 1970s) and the date when Cardistry goes mainstream. An explanation or expansion to bridge the gap would help.

Tarr & Ross 1976 talks about flourishes as a subsection of mircromagic and same goes for Cestkowski 2002 and Erdnase 1902. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Much improved.

13. A larger list of important practitioners (if they exist) might be of use. I note that a similar list is at Micromagic.

I could make a list, but it certainly wouldn't be as long as the one at mircomagic. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add a few more of WP:Notables.

Fixed

14. Equipment? Amplify. "Poop deck" is historical (hysterical) and interesting. (It would be a great hook for a WP:DYK.) Special card sets, etc. Most of this is covered in Cardistry, but has it evolved?

Standard playing cards. Quality produced, but still pretty ordinary playing cards; I wouldn't refer to it as "equipment". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amplify. See the note I added to Cardistry and the five best decks. Also, the "Poop Deck" was in Vanity Fair article, and it is kind of historical. I would like to see it included.

Added more material and citations. Cut out two external links used as citations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added it.

Done

15. Do any of these events have representation at or connection with Magic museums? Probably not, as there have been only the three conventions, but it is a relevant question.

I try to refrain from mixing the two art forms together (except when explaining the history of cardistry of course). Some cardists however attends Magic-Con and vice versa. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the apparent division between pure "cardists" and "magicians" should have a sentence or two.

16. Have we addressed who, what, where, when and why? In appropriate levels of exposition?

Sorry, but I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a rhetorical question useful as a benchmark.

Done

17. I have not yet been to the library to look at the books. I will do that and add to this later. But you can start on this now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional magician and cardist, I can vouch for all the books I brought to the table. The others were borrowed from cardistry. Nevertheless, most can be viewed online (I believe). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Fixed

18. I think we should mention the 'world championships' and competitions.

Jonas Vinther I've responded above. Can you refine this and tart it up just a bit more? We are very close. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Certainly, I'll walk my dog and get on this immediately afterwards. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes. Improvements? I think. Posted a few more updates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really like it. I apologize for not editing after I walked my dog as I promised I would; I was simply too tired. I'm glad you showed initiative and did what was required. I can't of anything that stands in the way from this article being promoted to GA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther We only have items 8, 15 and 18 left. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I did some copyediting to your recent additions, please have a look and let me know what ya think. I'll get onto point 8 and 15 soon. Tomorrow if not tonight; stay tuned. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also added an image of the twins! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love the picture. And your tweaks to mine worked. This looks a lot like a GA to me. Let's knock off the last ~~couple~~ three points and call it a day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've written and contributed to enough GA-articles to know that this is worthy of GA-status. Well done mate, really! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, you passing the article? I changed my name by the way. :) Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 10:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final points addressed[edit]

15. The apparent division between "cardists" and "magicians" comes down to personal identification, so a writing sentence would probably be confusing for our readers. Further, the difference between the two are, IMO, explained well enough in the "Roots in magic" section. You don't feel so?

18. I would strongly oppose mentioning events such as these so-called "world championships"; in reality, there are no such championships on a seriously organized or recognized level. Cardistry-Con 2014 was the first official and fairly organized cardistry-related event. It can be compared to you and I making our own "Wikipedia Championships" and given ourselves fancy titles.

Let me know what you think about my comments above 7&6=thirteen. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll take it under advisement and give you my answer in a day or two.

While we digress, what fancy title do you and I deserve? {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the many bans and sanctions imposed on me by the community, I hereby bestow onto you the title and rank of "Full Blood Alpha Beast Editor of Wikipedia". That's right! :) Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Review: It is reasonably well written. It is factually accurate and verifiable. It has a duly sized reference section, citations to reliable sources, is free of copyvio and plagiarism. It is broad in its coverage, covers major aspects with proper focus on the relevant nuances. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias. It is stable. No edit wars, etc. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. Images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales. They are used appropriately with suitable captions. Overall: Pass 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]