Talk:Gasparilla Pirate Festival

---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Gasparilla Pirate Festival/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the last abandoned review, I hope to have this completed shortly. I'm going to read through the article now. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I’m currently on vacation. I will return on the 21st to complete this review. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned. I am now finishing this review. Viriditas (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• Lead: I'm still thinking about this, but while I'm a big fan of full leads like this, as a reader, it gives me the impression that it goes into trivial details that probably shouldn't be in the lead, or alternatively, could be trimmed a bit, especially in areas where it repeats itself in the lead section. I will have more to say about this. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Gasparilla Pirate Festival is a large parade and a host of related community events held in Tampa, Florida, almost every year since 1904. This needs to be rewritten and revised. I realize that part of the legend and mythology in the primary literature of the parade organizers is giving it a kind of historical legitimacy that has lasted more than a century, but the reality is quite different. The parade has not been held almost every year. Briefly, it looks like the parade was cancelled or not held at least ten times in 1907, 1908, 1909, 1918, 1919, 1942-1945, and 2021. Other sources say there are at least one or two additional dates, leading to around 12 cancellations or non-event years. Also, the source used to support this statement says "Every year", which is obviously wrong. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clarified statement --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The fourth paragraph of the lead really diverts away from the subject, far more than I'm comfortable with per our guidelines on lead sections. I'm thinking it should either be outright removed or condensed down into a single sentence. I completely understand the reason it is there, but we have to be mindful to stay on topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not done: As the first sentence explains, the term "Gasparilla" sometimes refers to the main parade but could also include the other two large parades as well or could even refer to several months of related events in Tampa. As such, the info is quite relevant to the lede and is expanded upon in the article. --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You end the lead with The Gasparilla Pirate Festival has been locally popular since its inception and has grown into the third largest parade in the United States. Taken together, the events of Tampa's Gasparilla Season have an estimated local economic impact of about $40 million. I understand why you end the lead with this, but as the reader, I expected to know this in either the first or second paragraph. In fact, I want to know it is the third largest parade in the US in the first paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox image. Have you considered specifying the date of the photo (2003) in the caption? I'm also curious at how different this scene would look in 2023. Is it pretty much unchanged? Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added year And, yes, the ship and the route and everything else about the crossing of Tampa Bay has been the same since the 1970s. Actually, I could try to take a new photo next month. --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox doesn't say when the festival was established. That's generally standard. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done Switched out the holiday infobox for the generic event one, which makes more sense anyway imo. Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Description: ...an organization created for this purpose in 1904... specially built and decorated for this purpose in 1954...came together informally to stage the first pirate "invasion" in 1904...organized in 1966...organized in 1978... Note: there is somewhat of an overlap and duplication between this section and the history section. I realize this is partly a matter of editorial style, but I also think it is unnecessary and should be tightened up. In other words, stick to the description and keep the history in the history section. I really don't like to read the same thing twice. For example, you don't have to tell me when YMKG was created and when the Jose Gasparilla boat was built in both sections. This is a pet peeve of mine. Further, the duplication continues within the same section when you talk about Krewes! This is not good. It might be best to put the history section first, after the lead, then give a single description section without the subsections. This will force you to avoid history since with that new layout, you will have already discussed it prior to going into the description. This is easy to fix, but requires some effort. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LATER I see your point, but as a history teacher, I like to spread it around a bit lol. Revisions on this will take a while though, so I'll get back to it when I have time to do it right. Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Parade of Pirates: Around noon on the Gasparilla Day... Do you need "the" here? Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

typo fixed

• Krewes: As the planning has become more complicated over the years, however, the parade has accepted corporate sponsorships to defray costs You can remove "however" here. Since the parade was established by business leaders, accepting corporate sponsorships doesn't demand a contrasting "however" in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the Krewe of Gaparilla and the city combined to run everything without outside sponsorships or events coordinators etc. for decades until it finally got too big and expensive to manage. --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Economic impact: Crowd size for the Parade of Pirates is typically about 300,000, making it the third largest parade in the United States, and an estimated 1,000,000 people attend at least one Gasparilla event in a given year. According to several studies, the Parade of Pirates alone has a local economic impact of over $20 million, and the combined events bring in over $40 million. I see the number 300,000 and 20 million in the cited source(s), but I don't see "third largest parade", one million people in attendance or 40 million in the sources. Are these missing sources simply examples of editorial
  WP:CALC? If so, it often helps to add a footnote explaining how the calculation was arrived at, with a pointer to additional sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

added source The original 2015 article on the economic study in the Tampa Bay Business Journal is behind a paywall so I added one of many mentions from another news source. It would be nice to have updated figures but I guess there hasn't been a follow up study. --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: Still don't see where it is cited as the third largest parade with 1 million in attendance. I moved the sources that I could find directly to the facts and figures they support.[1] I deleted this source because it doesn't seem to support anything. Could you try to address this? Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Inspiration: Good job on this section. It's entertaining and informative. However, it makes more sense to change the title to "Legend" and to think about either placing it before the History section or incorporating it into it. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• History. Lots of duplication here with other sections. It's also odd to me how you have the inspiration section separate from this, as the two sections are very much part of each other. I accept that it is editorial prerogative, but it appears logical to me to merge inspiration into history.

done --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Location and dates: You specify dates throughout the article, yet you don't specify the years when the festival was suspended (1942-1947). Viriditas (talk)

done Didn't want to overwhelm casual readers by listing more years, but hopefully they can handle it. --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Parade route: The fair moved to much larger grounds east of Tampa in 1976 and Plant Field is long since demolished, but the basic parade route has remained the same, traveling north up Bayshore Boulevard and ending in or near downtown. Something is wrong with this sentence as "and Plant field is long since demolished" just doesn't work here. You could try splitting it up and fixing it. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Exceptions: This is extremely minor, so don't take it too seriously, but this subsection title seems unusual to me. I get what you mean, but shouldn't it be titled "Cancellations"? You're using the term "exception" to mean "cancellation of an annual festival event", but it's not something I expect as a reader. This could just be me, of course. Also, have you considered adding Category:Festivals cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic? There's also a small section about cancelled festivals in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the performing arts and an article on the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage. It's your call, but instead of linking to the main COVID-19 pandemic article here, consider linking to one of the former articles here ("canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic"). Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moved & trimmed sub-section The "exceptions" in the section title referred to both cancelations and date changes. I separated the two topics and changed the title. Also switched the COVID link - good call. --Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend merging "Exceptions" into "Inclusion / Super Bowl controversy" per comments below and choosing a new, neutral title with
  WP:CSECTION in mind. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Inclusion / Super Bowl controversy: This section duplicates the "Exceptions" section. I don't think it's best practice to have two duplicate sections. I think it makes sense to merge the two into one, with the title of your choosing. I could see something like "Cancellation and controversy" or just "Cancellations", or perhaps "Cancellation and rescheduling" to note the 2001 date. I don't think you need to specify the controversy of inclusion in the heading (see for example
  WP:CSECTION for possible titles) as the controversy is very much a reason for the 1991 cancellation. Of course, you can do this any way you want, but we don't need two sections. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The membership of Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla is overwhelmingly made up of Tampa's business and civic leaders, which meant that for many decades, the organization was exclusively white and male, leading to some resentment from unrepresented groups. This is a somewhat unusual way of summarizing the dispute from the sources. It at once implies that women and non-whites weren't business and civic leaders (not true), and that the problem wasn't discrimination but "resentment". I understand and sympathize that it may not be easy to accurately characterize a dispute steeped in controversy, particularly when you don't want to upset anyone. So speaking frankly: I honestly don't see a connection between being a business and civic leader, being white and male, and being discriminatory, and I don't see that connection in the sources. A few other issues here: it wasn't "many decades" that the discrimination against women and non-whites occurred, it was almost a century, but I'll leave it to you to determine the exact time. Also, I think attributing this to "resentment" from "unrepresented groups" is an odd way of misplacing the history of discrimination on to the victims in the community. I will assume you did not mean to do this, and it was an unintended connotation. I realize that this can be touchy for some people, so I would invite you to revisit the best sources on the subject and see if you can reword it. The easiest way to approach this is to stick to the facts, of course. You could just come out and say something like: "Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla arose at a time in Florida's history when discrimination against women and non-whites was acceptable and widely practiced by leaders of the community." Just an example. It's straightforward, doesn't beat around the bush, and doesn't try to shift the blame to "resentment" by women and non-whites. But yes, re-reviewing the sources is best. One benefit of doing it this way is that it gives you the opportunity to then discuss how the history of discrimination was addressed and fixed. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, African-Americans and others among Tampa's diverse population felt left out of the planning and organization of the events, with some observers questioning the tradition of local elites dressing as pirates and pretending to plunder the city.
    • Not to beat a dead horse, but again, this is odd wording that ignores what actually happened and talks around it. The abstract to the article "Krewe accepts 2 black members" (which is in the article) says "Although the Krewe abolished a rule in the early 1980s forbidding the admittance of black members, no black man was ever offered a spot on the Krewe's famous pirate ship, the Jose Gasparilla." This article doesn't mention the rule. This may be because it is behind a paywall. I'm going over to
      WP:WRE right now to request the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I've got the article now. I now notice that a lot of sources outside of Florida have covered this topic (NYT,[2] Washington Post,[3] etc.) but none of them are used here. I think that would help provide a more well-rounded perspective, since sticking to only local Tampa sources creates an artificial, parochial perspective. As the NYT points out, Richard Pittman, the former publisher of The Tampa Tribune was part of the krewe, and this could have implications regarding local coverage from the time, proving the necessity of using outside sources to write about the controversy. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Historian Gregory Jason Bell (MA, PhD)[4] of Tomas Bata University in Zlín wrote an interesting, but brief article about the origins of this parade ("Ye Mystic Krewe of Historical Revisionists: The Origins of Tampa's Gasparilla Parade") in 2013. It's available for download. The article highlights the secondary literature and scholarly sources on the subject and provides the missing NPOV counterpoint regarding the how and why of the myth. Avoiding any original research, Bell dives into the literature to show that the parade was created in the wake of the Spanish-American War, and was part of a larger trend that occurred throughout the country and the region involving "romanticizing the Spanish past", classified by other historians as "imperialist nostalgia", which manifests in this context, according to Bell, as white supremacy, which attempted to rewrite the history of the region which was steeped in multiculturalism, and led directly to one of racism and segregation. This in turn led to non-whites losing political power that they once had, and blacks losing the right to vote. According to the historians cited by Bell, the parade ritual served to erase the mutli-ethnic, multi-party history of Tampa and replace it with Old South mythologies based on white supremacy and the Lost Cause. Gaspar was a slave owner, and the parade floats featured scenes from plantations, complete with happy black slaves and white slave owners until the 1950s. Bell's argument continues, supported by dozens of reliable sources on the subject, showing how the parade was part of a constructed narrative to marginalize Hispanics and blacks and to show the superiority of whites. Bell cites several authorities in their field, showing how the parade narrative and legend was meant to get people to identify with the Old South rather than the racial and ethnic pluralism that represented the true history of Tampa. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LATER Good points; I'll have to look over the new sources and ponder how to best revise the section. As an amateur expert on Tampa history with dozens of books on the topic, I'm shocked that I'd never heard of Greg Bell's work, but he seems to be someone I should be reading anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

• Well-written: Minor issues with lead section and duplication of subsections that can easily be fixed.  Passed
• Verifiable with no original research: Notes, layout are good; reliable sources cited inline. Spot-check on references shows incomplete page numbers. Earwig's Copyvio Detector returns no known issues other than false positives for proper nouns and dates. Some references are either misplaced or missing for certain facts and figures. See above.  Passed
• Broad in its coverage: Adding "needs discussion" tag. I think it meets the most basic interpretation of the criterion, but I also think an argument could be made (based on the above), that the main points of the controversy are unintentionally ignored.  Passed
• Neutral: "Inclusion / Super Bowl controversy" section may contain poor wording or unintentional bias.  Passed
• Stable: No edit wars or content disputes. Article has remained the same for just under a year now.  Passed
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Images have valid licenses, are relevant, and have appropriate captions.  Passed

• Comments. I'm going to put this article on hold as soon as I finish adding additional comments to the above. Given that the nominator is an experienced and seasoned editor, I don't think it would take much work to fix the most basic issues. Three major things stand out preventing this from becoming a good article: 1) duplication of content is confusing for the reader and some effort should be made to tighten the structure and present more of a consistent narrative. I will have more to say about this above in a bit; 2) Spot-checks reveal uncited facts and figures and fuzzy use of dates, and in some cases the lack of dates (such as the infobox as specified up above). It isn't clear if these are simple mistakes or misplaced sources, or just
  WP:CALC issues, and if so, footnotes should indicate (IMO) how the calculations were made; 3) The issues with the broadness and neutrality criteria are one and the same. The sources are clear that there were issues of racism and white supremacy in the past, but in the modern era these issues have been addressed and the current iteration of the festival is now more diverse and represents the entire community (to what extent this is true, I leave up to the nominator). The article talks around these issues instead of directly addressing the sordid history (see above comments) and introduces unintentional bias of omission and interpretation that may not exactly best represent the history of the festival or the interests of accuracy. I believe this and other issues can easily be fixed and we can move forward with a future good article designation once that work is complete. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Zeng8r: I realize that some of my comments might be confusing or ambiguous, so if you need clarification, do not hesitate to ask me further questions about this review. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the sort of detailed feedback I appreciate as a fellow feedback-er. I'll get to work on your suggestions next week, after Christmas. Thanks, and have a good holiday!... Zeng8r (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Thought I'd separate new comments here so they're easier to see. I took care of the easier revision suggestions before Christmas, and I've been pondering the revamp of the history section while visions of sugarplums danced in my head. I agree that there's a bit of redundancy, and as a public high school history teacher in Florida, I fully appreciate the dangers of whitewashing the harsh realities of segregation and racial injustice and agree that the section on the integration controversy needs to be more direct. However, it shouldn't go too far in the other direction, either. The articles you found by Greg Bell seem to take their lead from the seminal work by d'Ans, who did a great job debunking the Jose Gaspar myth but then went on a bit of a determinist tangent about the deeper meaning of the festival without actually ever coming to Tampa to get a better understanding of the complex local situation. Tampa's been a unique multicultural island in the south since the 1880s, so issues of race and diversity are not nearly as black and white as d'Ans and Bell seem to believe, pun intended. Their views on the deep sociological underpinnings of Gasparilla are also not commonly shared in print, so while they should get a mention, to emphasize them too much would be

. I will definitely add more context about Jim Crow and segregation with regards to YMKG, however, as it was definitely lacking.

I started the process but family obligations call; I'll get back to it this evening. Zeng8r (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you’ve said, and I look forward to your improvements. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I finally took a shot at the controversy section. Another good find with that 1990 NY Times article - I hadn't seen it before, either. How's the article look now? Zeng8r (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: Much better. I'm in the middle of something right now, but I will give it a close look later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: Impressive job on this. I've passed the neutrality criterion. Will work on reviewing the rest. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I tweaked a couple of sentences today and added a new reference about the pirate ship (there were conflicting accounts of its exact size), but I'll leave it be for now unless you have more suggestions. Zeng8r (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: First, let me thank you for putting the time and effort into this, as it shows. A few minor things: You write: Though Tampa was home to the largest and most prosperous "Latin" population in the southern United States excepting New Orleans in the early 20th Century, it was strictly racially segregated like the rest of the Deep South. Can you provide page numbers for this? I'm not sure what you mean by "Latin", so for our readers, can you specify? Do you mean latino, hispanic, Latin American, or some combination? I just now see we have a separate article on this, Hispanics and Latinos in Florida, so perhaps you can link to that? Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cited book ("The Immigrant World of Ybor City") covers the topic, but I could add an online source as well. "Latin" as used in Tampa means a unique mix of Cuban / Spanish / Italian immigrants. The article you suggested sorta covers it, but not quite, and I see that the section on Cubans in Florida over there is woefully incomplete since it only covers the post-Castro era. In any case, a wikilink would be better than nothing. Perhaps a "see also" link to History of Tampa, Florida would be in order at the top of discussion? Zeng8r (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is transparent to the reader, you can do it however you want. Sometimes an explanatory footnote is also helpful, but as long as you choose the right word and the wikilink is there, that's probably the best you can do. I would, however, try to cut down on the scare quotes as there are a lot of them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the slightly redundant phrase in the intro restating that Gaspar did not exist - I put it back because, as the pirate yarn explains, there's ongoing local confusion on that point. I've literally had people seriously argue online and in person that Gaspar was definitely real, and/or that his treasure is either still out there or was already found years ago by their grandfather's neighbor's fishing buddy or some such nonsense. Reiterating the fact that it's just a fun story seems like a good idea with local context in mind, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The only reason the other user and I removed it was because it was redundant with the use of folklore and legend and myth. I added "fictional story" in the lead, but I trust you to do with it what you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CALC, adding an explanatory footnote. I see that you have added a lot of sources to the end of paragraphs, which is acceptable in most cases per the GACR. The problem is that when you cite specific facts and figures, this becomes a chore for reviewers to verify, as some of the concerns above illustrate. So let's keep at this. Another thing to keep in mind is the excessive use of scare quotes to illustrate the fictional/entertainment reenactment, and to differentiate it from actual usage. You've explained your rationale for doing it this way, which I find commendable, but I think it fails to have the intended impact and should be used sparingly. The way to do this is to establish the fictional context beforehand (I made one attempt at this in the lead, you can do it in many other ways), and then to follow this with fictional prompts. This will insure that you don't have to use scare quotes in every section like you do, which I find really distracting and excessive. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess we can safely assume that most "intelligent" readers will understand that it's not a real "pirate crew" sailing in on their "pirate ship" to "kidnap" the mayor and "invade" the city, so I'll take out most of those "scare quotes".

However, I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to regarding facts and figures and sources besides the issues in the economic impact section, which I just fixed. I couldn't find a non-paywalled citation for the 1,000,000 total attendees claim so I removed it, and since there's some official uncertainly about the third largest parade claim, I made the sentence less specific using a newer source. What other citations need "tightening" (pardon my quotes)? I honestly shouldn't spend too much more time on this right now, as a hefty stack of student essays has been crying out from my school bag the last couple of days already lol. Zeng8r (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I will finish this up and clarify any issues I find. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: The article is looking good. The only thing that sticks out is the small cancellation section which duplicates some material. Any chance of moving or incorporating this info elsewhere? Just wondering. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I rearranged the history section a bit to make it flow a little more logically. Back to the topic of the "quotes"; most of your changes are fine, and though a handful feel a little clunky, it's not worth quibbling about. I did, however, restore the term "Supersized Gasparilla" in reference to the 2001 parade since that's what it was called in the media, including in the headline of the article cited at the end of that sentence. I'll check back this afternoon to see if there's any more cleanup to do... Zeng8r (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and restore the article to your preference. I would like to see what it would look like. Viriditas (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just made a few little adjustments, the most important of which was correcting the length of the ship across the article. Are we good now? Though I'm busy irl, it'd be great to finish revisions before article page views shoot up astronomically over the next couple of weeks. Zeng8r (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: I will work on a final review shortly. I hope we can pass it soon. You should consider putting together a hook for DYK and posting a special occasion exemption request on the talk page so that somebody can review it and put it on the main page during the festival rather than waiting the month or so for normal DYK. My understanding is that they will try and give you the exemption and space provided there are no problems with the article or hook. Viriditas (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: I'm doing a final read-through and still finding issues, mostly to do with sourcing spot-checks. For example, the "parade route" section is very loosely cited to Powell 1977, which you don't include page numbers for. Looking through it, I see some of the material is supported, but some of it is not. Same thing in the "schedule" section. For example, I tried to source the official holiday statement, but it's nowhere to be found. I was able to find Fla. Stat. § 683.08, which I added to the article, but it's a bit odd we can't put a date on when it became a legal holiday for the county. I was able to go back until the 1980s with the statute, but I assume it goes back much farther. Several sources support the idea that "Gasparilla became a county-specific legal holiday in Hillsborough County during this time with local schools and government offices closed for the day" but they aren't in the article. The statement at the end, "A major change came in 1988, when the Parade of Pirates was moved to the first Saturday in February so that out-of-towners could more easily take part in the festivities" doesn't seem to be in the cited source, so maybe you could fix that. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: I've now passed all criterions except for 2b/c. The sourcing still has issues. I will update further in addition to the above. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think one possible way to expedite this review, since you are busy with work and incommunicado, is for me to just pull all the content that isn’t immediately verifiable. Let me know what you think. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite a week but I finally have a bit of time to work on this again and would argue that removing valid information (and everything mentioned is valid) because there's not a citation at the end of the sentence is a very bad idea. I'm positive that many or most of the facts were sourced at one point - perhaps the references got separated during various revisions. I'll take a look in few minutes. Zeng8r (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Take your time. Just wanted to make sure you were getting my messages. I've been pinged a lot elsewhere and haven't received any of the pings, so reaching out isn't as easy as it should be. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a whole article pass this morning to address the issues mentioned and generally give the text better flow after having moved things around earlier. Excepting any typos I may have missed among all the citation formatting, I think it's pretty darn good at this point, and I happily discovered a few interesting items to add to my already overstuffed Tampa history archive. So it's been fun, but I really can't spend much more time on this. Zeng8r (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r: I got you fam. Give me an hour or so to try and close this out. Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that last set of edits.[5] I think it shows that when you have the free time, good things happen. Also, great work on the controversy section. I doubt anyone else here could have pulled that off. Well done. I've gone ahead and made several copyedits based on formatting and wording.[6] Please review when you have a moment. I'm passing the article now, but I did want to leave some closing comments based on my reading of the article:

• Toxicity of bead pollution: This subject is covered in environmental impact of Mardi Gras beads, and it would be nice to see minimal coverage of the issue if the sources exist vis-à-vis Gasparilla.
• Lead contamination of ammo shells: I wanted to know if anyone had looked into this part of the history.
• Photo of SS American Victory "standing in for the US Navy": An addition of this photo would be great.
• Anthropology and sociology: This topic is likely covered by academics in their respective fields, and I was curious about the state of academic research in this area.
• 1971 bad weather and rough seas: Often when we describe bad weather on Wikipedia, we can link to a separate page on that weather phenomenon. I really wanted a link here.
• Official holiday status: Still need an incept date for the original county statute stipulating the holiday, which I could not find. I suspect if you have access to legal indexes it should show up.

Thanks for your hard work, and Happy Gasparilla! Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]