Talk:Locust Plague of 1874

Did you know nomination

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 RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Cartoon of Kansas farmer fighting locusts

• ... that trains lost traction during the Locust Plague of 1874 in the United States due to the tracks being "slick with grasshopper guts"?
  • ALT1: ... that it was suggested to eat locusts fried in butter or in a soup during the Locust Plague of 1874 in the United States?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shigeo Kageyama

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC).

• Hi SL93, can you advise on the reliability of historynet.com? The most recent discussion on it I could find (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#historynet.com) doesn't fill me with confidence, though they do seem to be publishers of history magazines in the US. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the magazines but if they are generally reliable and the same people create content for both then it might be OK?

A few minor bits I picked up in the text

• There's a minor grammar issue with "The now extinct locusts were in piles of up to over a foot"
• "From 1874 to 1875, the U.S. Army handed out thousands of clothing and other items" - missing word
• "In the spring of 1875, much of the hatched locust eggs died due to frost." - doesn't read right to me, is "many" better?
• I think your last three sentences about aid in Kansas would sit better before the sentence about the eventual extinction of the locust.

Will complete the review once we've discussed the sourcing - Dumelow (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, couple of other bits. You should convert the square miles to km2 for a worldwide audience and probably mention the country in the hook - Dumelow (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Dumelow Only two people participated in that discussion - the person who asked about the reliability and one other person. The response says that HistoryNet has a "general lack of citations (inline or bibliography), the typical lack of bylines, and lack of precision in wording". Those aren't even requirements for a source to be reliable in Wikipedia standards. The source is currently used in over 500 articles. This article does have a byline - "Chuck Lyons, based in Rochester, N.Y., is a retired newspaper editor who now writes freelance articles for Wild West and other publications." It's not just about the source, but also the author. Chuck Lyons wrote for the U.S. Naval Institute and that page says - "Mr. Lyons is a retired newspaper editor and a freelance writer who has written extensively on historical subjects. His work has appeared in national and international periodicals, and he was the 2008 winner of the Harryman Dorsey Award for “an outstanding article on Colonial American History." SL93 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't find the grammar issue. I also don't know what the missing word is. SL93 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

HistoryNet is reliable, but I still added more sources. SL93 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi SL93, thanks for the detail on HistoryNet, that sounds fine to me (the USNI is very respectable) - there's no need to replace citations to it. My points on the text were minor and won't hold up DYK approval. Maybe a ENGVAR thing but I wouldn't say "up to over a foot", it'd be "up to a foot" or "over a foot". Perhaps similar but "thousands of clothing and other items" sounds a little strange. No biggie though. Article was created today, exceeds minimum length and I found no issue with overly close paraphrasing. Hooks are interesting (I prefer ALT0), mentioned in the article and cited (AGF on book sources are offline or I can't access the right page of on Google). A QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Dumelow How do you feel about using an image? ALT0a ... that trains lost traction during the Locust Plague of 1874 (cartoon pictured) in the United States due to the tracks being "slick with grasshopper guts"? SL93 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi SL93, it certainly looks old but is there anything explicitly stating it was published in 1875? The cartoon isn't very clear at DYK scale, if the contrast could be improved it might be better or perhaps a crop might help - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, just found the image description page at the source attributing it to Henry Worrall (artist) so that should be fine - Dumelow (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Dumelow I cropped it to the main action. I also made it "farmer" instead of "farmers" in the caption. Despite the title of the cartoon, there is one farmer fighting while the rest look dumbfounded. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me - Dumelow (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: I would prefer to have the image if possible, and not the quirky slot. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Locust Plague of 1874/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 05:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm running out of quips to begin these reviews. Review start.

Copy-vios

• Nothing of note, Earwig gives the all clear
• I'll do occasional spot checks, I'll flag anything problematic

Images

• So there are actually two versions of this same image. I recommend swapping with this one and noming the current one for deletion. The linked image is slightly better quality and a more specific copyright rational.
• Consider adding an image or two from Rocky Mountain locust
• 'Cartoon photograph' is a nondescript caption, please specify more

Sources

• No concerns of note

Prose

• The population of Rocky Mountain locusts continued to decline each year after 1874 and in spring 1875, many of the hatched locust eggs died due to frost, leading to their extinction Bit to comma happy, please break up into two sentences.

This sentence implies that the frost was the sole reason for extinction.

• 'the Indian Territory' specify
• " theorized that a range of coniferous timber... " Why?
• " in 1880 that the infestation" which infestation?
• 'were in piles' is this the intended terminology?
• 'turning them the color of their excrement' is this necessary?
• This whole first paragraph of Damage and the Results paragraph could use a bit more complex sentence structure. They flow very awkwardly.
• 'Farmers made meals out of the locusts.' relate this back to the the recipe statement if possible. It sorta comes out of nowhere and feels awkwardly placed in.
• 'leading to their extinction' by when?
• Locusts continued to cause more infestations, including Albert's swarm, until insecticides were created during World War II is this sentence necessary? It seemly contradicts the claim that the locust went extinct. Albert's swarm was already mentioned.

Prose needs some work. I made some edits, please review and revert if necessary. Placing on hold. Etrius ( Us) 04:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@SL93, oops, I see there was an edit conflict on this page. I see you added the references to Albert's swarm, Thanks for doing that :D

Etrius ( Us) 04:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Etriusus I will withdraw this per "This whole first paragraph of Damage and the Results paragraph could use a bit more complex sentence structure. They flow very awkwardly". I don't know what you mean. SL93 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I decided to attempt it with the first section. I don't know what do to do for the second section. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@SL93 I am more than happy to clarify. Ultimately the choice to withdraw is yours but I would personally advise you to stick this one out. I realize in hindsight that my comment may have been vague, and I'm sorry about that (I tend to write these reviews at 11 pm-midnight). I went through and made the edits myself, since it was a bit of a difficult issue to explain. My concern was that the flow of the article itself was rough, a number of sentences felt like individual/separate facts being listed rather than a cohesive article. There needed to be more transition words and ideas needed to be connected a bit better. Style of writing is a relatively weak criteria anyway and I have no issue with helping you with this nom. This article isn't far off and I'd hate to fail it simply on these grounds.

I'll give a new set of suggestions later today since most of these don't apply anymore. I actually clean up most of the issues myself, and almost feel inclined to pass it but I'll do my due diligence and re-review one more time. I went digging through a few sources and added a sentence or two. Feel free to review these edits and revert if you disagree. Etrius ( Us) 18:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Second pass

• I still recommend swapping with this one.

I really don't see anything that I cannot clean-up or are isses within the scope for GA criteria. I understand that some of the issues above may just be writing style and that wouldn't be fair to hold this article back simply on those grounds. I apologize for the whiplash, and relative unorthodox nature of this review but I'll go ahead and pass the article. Congrats!!! Etrius ( Us) 00:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.