# Talk:Tinsley Island

There are a lot of sources right now, which I've gone to the trouble of finding, clipping, and summarizing in the skeleton version of the article (which is in this revision); I think what I'm going to do right now is trim a lot of them out (or give passing coverage to most of them) because they are going over a lot of monotonously similar content (and I don't want to write a 50kb chronicle of the St. Francis Stag Cruise). But I will leave a link here to the old revision, in case I (or anyone else) want to go back later and flesh it out more. jp×g 09:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, never mind, I guess I just wrote the whole thing. jp×g 10:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tinsley Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Templates and Tools for my own convenience:

 Done
Strikethrough
Highlight
Common errors: WP:CITELEAD, Wikipedia:CITESTYLE, WP:PUFFERY
Earwig

1. It is reasonable well written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct 
It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I went ahead and cleaned up the majority if grammatical errors. Some sentances need to be reworded. Etriusus (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 

All inline citations are from reliable sources; 
It contains no original research; 
All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Nothing picked up on Earwig, you may be a tad bit overzealous on the quotations. Etriusus (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
3. It is broad in its coverage 

It addresses the main aspects of the topic; 
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
This is a page about the island and not the Yacht Club. There are times the page gets too in depth about the club itself. Remember, that island is the focus, not the club. Etriusus (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Is it neutral?;

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable  Done

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Page shows no sign of ongoing edit wars or instability. The majority of recent edits are either QA bots or the main contributor.
6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images, where possible and appropriate;  Done

Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions 
Image data and copyright information is sufficent to confirm the sourcing of provided media. No issues to note. Etriusus (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG, I will be your reviewer for your GAN. I will add in suggestions piecewise as I go through the article, and I should have my first round of suggestions complete within a few hours. A cursory glance of the article hasn't found any major issues but there are a few minor edits that need to be made. Etriusus (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Since 1958, it has been owned by the St. Francis Yacht Club; in 1960, the club transported a lighthouse from San Francisco Bay to serve as its clubhouse, and in the same year began an annual "Stag Cruise" which continues to the present day. This sentence is run on. Please reword as its difficult to follow. Etriusus (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Directly to its north is the Ward Cut (a section of the Stockton Deepwater Shipping Channel), and beyond that is the Empire Tract.[3][4][5][6] It is 12 mi (19 km) miles northwest of Stockton.[4][5][6] Are all these citations necessary? It may be a violation of Wikipedia:CITESTYLE, especially since all of this information can be found within just 1-2 of these sources. Etriusus (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
"duck pond" Is this a nautical term or just a quote from someone? If its a quote then it needs to be attributed or at the very least clarified. Something as simple as 'was described as little more than a "duck pond'" would suffice.Etriusus (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
but was completed without a single window on the lighthouse shattering This isn't really notable information. Etriusus (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yg Made an attempt. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The total cost of the three-story structure, which had been at its previous location since 1906, was $3,000 ($26,244 in 2021). Please rewrite this sentence or merge it into the preceding paragraph. It does not flow well and is somewhat extraneous information. Etriusus (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Tinsley Island was a "chic and cozy retreat" and in 1960 the San Francisco Examiner said the "water skiing, fishing and swimming in the area are excellent" This portion reads like an advertisement more than an encyclopedia, perhaps it could be reworded but otherwise, it should be cut. Etriusus (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yg Made an attempt. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
"all the modern conveniences" Again, reads like an advertisement. Etriusus (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
partly due to club members who saw that remoteness as a virtue Please reword. Etriusus (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Residents of the "stately and exclusive" island have received mail by boat since at least the 1970s. Is this sentence necessary? A periodical about the average wealth of the residents would function much better here. If there is nothing more concrete, consider removing this sentance and the preceeding paragraph In 1975, it was said.... Etriusus (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Please keep the article in chronological order. In 1975 and As of 2000 Are both out of chronological order. The paragraph about prices is fine to leave as is. Etriusus (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The two sentences In 1966, and As of 2000 are disconnected from the rest of the article. Etriusus (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Done. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that creating an "Ecology" section and putting the mosquito and carp information would help organize the article significantly better. Also, a list of local wildlife would be ideal, but not necessary. Etriusus (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Y Made a "geography and ecology" section. jp×g 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

by Dave Cain The movie director? If this is someone famous, please elaborate further. If its just a random guy with the same name, then cut it, it isn't notable information.
I think separating History and the St. Francis Yacht Club into separate sections would be a good idea. Much of the history focuses heavily on the Yacht club rather than the island itself.
Perhaps separating out the exact goings-on with the Yacht club and Island's development might be the best idea. Ultimately, this is just one idea and I'll leave it to your discretion on how you want to parse these sections out. The first three paragraphs in the history section are excellent as they keep the article focused on the island but then the focus shifts to the club. If the topics are too intrinsically linked, then refocusing some of the later paragraphs might be in order, especially since one could justify that the information would be more appropriate in the St. Francis Yacht Club page.
was done without breaking any of its original windows Again, this may be too specific. Maybe just saying it was undamaged will suffice, assuming that's true of course.
it was said that "California men Who said this? That's a very glowing review but it may be pushing up against WP:PROMOTION. Please review other quotes to make sure they don't violate this/have proper attribution. Your use of the S.F. Examiner is a good example of how to use a quote (notable source, properly attributed). If you can't find a notable source, then it should probably be removed.
"the nothin'-but-money crowd lives on Tinsley Island" and what might well become the Bohemian Grove of yachting" are examples of this.
For medical purposes... This quote is very well done, I quite like it and it feels appropriate since it is designated as an advertisement.
One of these boats... This sentence is standalone and likely, not notable. Maybe combining it into the earlier paragraph would be a good idea.
As of 2021, the St. Francis Yacht Club still owns and operates the island. Please include this in the lead paragraph.
Shelley, a former.. Notability. Combining this with the preceeding paragraph by wording it as: ...including John F. Shelley, mayor of San Francisco and a former merchant mariner.

@JPxG The initial review is complete, please feel free to add additional comments or concerns here or under the relevant recommendation. If you need any help with edits I'll gladly help. I went through and cleaned up some grammatical errors.
@JPxG Are you currently active/able to respond to the GAN? It has been 4 days without response and the review was automatically fail if there is no response after 7 days. Etriusus (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Etriusus: I'm back, ohh yeah. I will be on this shortly. jp×g 00:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: What is the timeline for this GAN? You stated you'd get to it shortly so I don't want to fail it if you're currently drafting or about to clean it up. If you are unable to complete it at this time, that is fine. Just please lmk what the plan is and if you need any help Etriusus (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Etriusus: I had some stuff going on which was taking up a lot of my time, but I should be good to roam on this tomorrow. I do appreciate what you've done for the review, and the things you've said are worthwhile. jp×g 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: Its all good, extending the review period isn't anything serious. You can get to it when you can, IRL comes first obviously. Just wanted to make sure everything was okay. Plz lmk if you need anything, I'm more than happy to help.  Etriusus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Etriusus: Check it out :) jp×g 02:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: Excellent work. I gave the article another pass and made some minor grammatical/clarification edits. I have a few more edits I've kicked back to you. Get to them when you can, there is no rush. The combined section: Geography and Ecology works for the amount of content present. I did a little digging and found that St. Francis Yacht Club is a page that exists, just thought that was cool.Etriusus (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I made the edits a few days ago, and I wrote some stuff on this page, and I thought I had saved it, but I guess maybe I didn't. So I will write it again, I guess. I have gone over the things you mentioned in the last batch of comments and done my best with them. @Etriusus: Wanna take a look? jp×g 02:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@JPxG: Oh, I see. Thanks for getting back to me. There are a few minor clean-up things that I'll take care of and then I'll pass the article. Congrats on getting another island to GA status, this was hard-earned and you should be proud of it. Etriusus (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)