Talk:SoHo Weekly News

Possible sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/obituaries/michael-goldstein-publicist-who-started-soho-weekly-news-dies-at-79.html
• https://washingtonspectator.org/in-memory-of-doug-ireland/
• https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/soho-weekly-news/
• http://thevillager.com/2018/05/31/michael-goldstein-79-of-soho-weekly-news/
• https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1986/208-n-j-super-163-0.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1979/11/29/mutilation-the-artists-angry-message/8bcfe57e-3e59-4752-a248-be48aed94dd5/?utm_term=.1080c0fd9c43
• https://tulipfrenzy.com/tag/soho-weekly-news/
• https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/community/lifecycles/obituaries/goldstein-michael/article_c84ad3cc-5ebd-11e8-beeb-f39ebaa00f1a.html
• https://thehalfking.com/gallery/early/tannenbaumgallery.htm
• https://deadline.com/2015/01/n-y-film-critics-linklater-arquette-1201341822/
• https://www.artsjournal.com/outthere/jeff-weinstein
• https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/03/20/004956.html?action=click&contentCollection=Archives&module=LedeAsset&region=ArchiveBody&pgtype=article&pageNumber=27
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1982/03/16/soho-news-ends-publication/a344cf78-7ed3-444b-80d4-913deab1fc28/?utm_term=.1f9d7d973262
• https://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Publication/soho-weekly-news

• Susan Sontag suit: https://www.newspapers.com/image/350472519/?terms=soho%2Bweekly%2Bnews

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SoHo Weekly News/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ktkvtsh (talk · contribs) 07:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for GA standing. Ktkvtsh (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass: The article on the SoHo Weekly News meets all the criteria for a good article. It provides a comprehensive history of the newspaper, its founders, and its impact on New York's alternative journalism scene. The article is well-sourced, neutral in tone, and offers valuable insights into the publication's significance, making it a strong candidate for recognition as a good article.
· · ·

Comments

I was asked on my talk to look at the article. Looks very good, only minor stuff.

• Why is Ramones italicized? And why isn't Details?
• "with a ground-breaking SWN story showing an underwear-clad Jeff Aqualon in erotic poses." Perhaps "story with illustrations showing ...". And if Mr. Aqualon is not notable, I don't see why he needs to be named in the lead.
• "ad agency". Someone's bound to object that this is an informality and push for "advertising agency". Similarly "ad revenue"
• "he edited the New York Times Magazine. Isn't the The capped and part of the title?
• Six block quotes in the music section seems a lot.
• "The paper's office was once bombed by a "leader of a radical organization" who was upset that his name had been misspelled in an article; the explosion injured two employees" Any contemporary coverage of the bombing? If not, should we be stating it this way in Wikipedia's voice?
• "A year later, Goldstein stated that the paper had an annual revenue of $1.1 million and their circulation was 60,000" their? Perhaps "and a circulation of 60,000 per issue"
• ""the News' unauthorized publication last month of Susan Sontag's speech"." Do we really need this quote? And if we do, italics for the News.

Ping me when you want me to take another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wehwalt thank you for your comments. I've addressed most of these. You are spot-on about the over-reliance on block quotes; that was one of the things I was worried about myself, so you confirmed my initial feeling. I think "circulation" is implicitly per issue, so I'll leave that as is. I haven't been able to find anything more about the bombing, but I'll keep looking.

I'm going to leave the bit about the unauthorized publication as is. I've seen reference to the lawsuit in multiple sources, but this quote from Leese is the only place I've found where the publisher acknowledges that it was unauthorized. It seems like a significant event in the ultimate decision to shutter the paper. RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wehwalt if you're still interested, this is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SoHo Weekly News/archive1 RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will be over there sometime this week, depending on pressure of RL. Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I've withdrawn the nomination. Two people didn't like it, for legitimate reasons, and that's fine. I enjoyed writing it (and digging into the history) and there will be other articles for me to work on. I appreciate your assistance. RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Please take a rain check (my, that's a dated term) for when you bring it back. Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, but I'm probably not going to bring it back. The fundamental objection was my excessive use of quotes (something which you yourself noted and I partially addressed). I happen to like the quotes and they help tell the story in the way I think it should be told. I'm comfortable with that not meeting with the community's expectation of what a featured article should be. There will be other articles. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

SoHo Weekly News

I brought this to WP:FAC last year, where it was not well received. The major criticism was over-use of quotations which I've reduced significantly in this version. At some point I'll bring this back to FAC for another try, so looking for feedback here on compliance with WP:FACR.

Please feel free to make minor and/or uncontroversial changes without need to ask. Easier for me. Easier for you. It's the wiki way.

Thanks, RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

I love reading articles about publications. And I think it's time for me to give you some feedback after you have done it twice (1, 2) to articles that I've written. I'll take a deep look into it during the next few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Initial look, concentrating on the article's grammar:

• "The paper was purchased by Associated Newspaper Group in 1979 and shut down three years later when they were unable to make it profitable." → "The Associated Newspaper Group purchased the publication in 1979 but folded it three years later due to persistent financial losses."
• "Many staff had distinguished careers after the paper shut down. Annie Flanders founded Details magazine. Kim Hastreiter and David Hershkovits started Paper. Bill Cunningham spent many decades as a photojournalist for The New York Times, Allan Tannenbaum became known for his coverage of rock musicians, and Bruce Weber got his start photographing male fashion models with an influential SWN photo story showing an underwear-clad male model in erotic poses." reads like a trivia list. "The paper served as an incubator for prominent media and fashion figures; alumni included Details founder Annie Flanders, Paper co-founders Kim Hastreiter and David Hershkovits, photographer Bruce Weber, and long-time New York Times photojournalist Bill Cunningham. Allan Tannenbaum became a rock music journalist while Bruce Weber became a prominent fashion photographer."
• " Initially published in eight pages, it grew to over 100 pages and competed with established alternative newsweekly The Village Voice." → "Initially expanding from an eight-page startup to an over-100-page issue, the paper positioned itself as a direct competitor to the established alternative weekly The Village Voice."
• Suggest cutting down all blockquotes and paraphrasing them. E.g. Kim Hastreiter: "Former fashion editor Kim Hastreiter later characterized the paper as a cultural staple for the downtown community, noting that its weekly calendar of art openings, parties, and concerts served as the primary guide for planning social activities." I don't like seeing them in FAs.
• "Many SWN staff, 80 percent of whom were freelance in 1976, had notable careers before or after their association with the paper." → "Supported largely by a freelance workforce, which commprised 80 percent of the staff by 1976, SWN employed numerous writers and artists who achieved significant professional prominence."
• " Edward Gorey wrote movie reviews under the byline Wardore Edgy; in a 1991 interview, he said that if The Village Voice was Off-Broadway, then SWN was Off-Off-Broadway." → "Illustrator Edward Gorey contributed film reviews under the pseudonym Wardore Edgy, later remarking that if The Village Voice represented Off-Broadway culture, SWN was Off-Off-Broadway."
• "He then went on to a long career at The New York Times as a photojournalist, producing his famous On the Street and Evening Hours columns." → "Cunningham later joined The New York Times, where he spent decades producing his celebrated On the Street and Evening Hours photojournalism columns."
• "Author Richard Boch described how many of the SWN staff would frequent the nearby Mudd Club each night, including Goldstein "dressed in a brass-button navy blazer and looking like a country club admiral"." → "Author Richard Boch noted that SWN staff regularly frequented the nearby Mudd Club, recalling that Goldstein often attended dressed in a brass-button navy blazer, 'looking like a country club admiral'."
• "Interviewed c. 2025 for Room 100: Sid, Nancy, and the Night Punk Rock Died, Ann Bardach told of her start in journalism. She had landed a position at The New York Times but the 1978 New York City newspaper strike put her out of work after writing a single story. She decided to frequent the New York City morgue where she became friendly with the staff and was introduced to the chief medical examiner, Michael Baden, who reportedly allowed her free access to the autopsy room (although Baden disputed this)." → "Journalist Ann Bardach secured an early professional breakthrough covering the 1978 murder of Nancy Spungen for SWN. After identifying Spungen's body at the city morgue from her frequent visits to the Mudd Club, Bardach authored a series of influential articles on the crime. True crime historian Jesse Pollack later characterized her reporting as foundational pieces of journalism that shaped the historical record of the event."
• "In the fall of 1981, ANG announced plans to close or sell the paper by February 1982. Although there were negotiations with possible purchasers which continued beyond the original deadline, ongoing losses ($1.7 million in the previous year) forced ANG to shut down the paper in March." → "In late 1981, ANG announced intentions to liquidate or sell the publication. Despite extended negotiations with prospective buyers past the initial February 1982 deadline, a $1.7 million annual deficit forced the owners to permanently halt operations in March."
• "Also contributing to the downfall was a pending lawsuit by essayist Susan Sontag." → "A pending copyright infringement lawsuit by essayist Susan Sontag further exacerbated the paper's financial strain."

Second look, concentrating on coherency:

• "The SoHo Weekly News (SWN) was a weekly alternative newspaper" is weekly required here when it's already in the title of the newspaper? what do you think? I don't mind being it kept.
• "it struggled financially" why?
• " Three years later, coal magnate and New York cultural impresario John Samuels called SWN his favorite newspaper." is this relevant for the article? I'm unsure. I'm pretty sure many liked the paper so I don't know why would we include his opinion.
• who is Keith Haring? introduce his occupation.
• "from 1975 – 1982" from 1975 to 1982. same goes for "from 1974 – 1975".

That's it from me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0 Thanks for the comments. I'm working my way through Aoba47's right now, then I'll get to these. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've worked through those. Did some, didn't do others. The sentence about John Samuels really stuck out like a sort thumb: I spent a lot of time trying to figure out where that fit best and never saw the obvious answer which is, as you pointed out, "not in this article" :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for you work, Roy. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I would recommend adding a caption for the infobox image (File:Soho News, Vol. 8 No. 6, November 1980.jpg). The two FAs on newspapers (Illustrated Daily News and Sunderland Echo) use image captions for their infoboxes.

Done

• I believe that the SWN acronym should be italicized since it is in reference to a newspaper. I am bringing this based on the lead's first sentence. The newspaper title and acronym should be italicized in the article as well, as I have noticed that for the article's first sentence both SoHo Weekly News and SWN are not italicized.

Done

• I have a comment about the following sentence from the lead: Although the official editorial stance was anti-gentrification, some retrospectives have argued that its coverage of local culture and business actually contributed to the upward trend in property values. In the article, I am only seeing one source (Stephen Petrus) that does this type of retrospective. The lead says that there are multiple, but I am not seeing that reflected in the actual article itself. Please let me know if I am overlooking anything though.

Done

• I would avoid repetition of "the paper" in the following sentence: Many staff at the paper had distinguished careers after the paper shut down. I think that this could be avoided by saying either Many of the SWN staff or some variation of that instead.

Done

• Details, Paper, and The New York Times should all be linked in the lead's third paragraph.

Done

• Is there a way to add alt text to the map?

Unfortunately, I don't believe that is supported.

I had a feeling that was the case. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• I do have an admittedly more nitpick-y question about the following sentence: He described the intended audience as 22-to-35 years old: people who had come of age attending rock concerts in the 1960s. Is the colon necessary here? I do not think so, but I wanted to check with you rather than making the edit myself.

I think the colon is correct. Per MOS:COLON, it "introduces something that demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before"

That is good to know. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Do we have any examples of how SWN was an outspoken critic of the commercialization and gentrification of SoHo, like an examples of articles and coverage on this topic? The article currently presents just one sentence on this topic before getting into how the SWN contributed to the gentrification of the area, so it would be nice if possible to get some additional context on what the paper's anti-gentrification actually looked like.

I haven't been able to find any, but I'll keep looking. Unfortunately, SWN does not appear to be archived anywhere other than the occasional one-off.

That is understandable. Unfortunately, I have run into similar issues with things not being archived. I am sure that most Wikipedia editors can relate to this. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• For the second paragraph of the "Staff" section, there is some repetition of write/wrote. It is inevitable to some degree, but it may be helpful to add some variation to the first two sentences to avoid having write/wrote twice in a row.

Done

• The fashion editor link should be moved up to the first instance in the article.

I moved it to an earlier place, but the very first instance is already kind of link-heavy, so WP:IAR.

That makes sense to me. The very first instance in the article would cause a sea of blue, so I think that your revision is the best solution for this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• The Bruce Weber image (File:Bruce Weber (2024), Prague.jpg) should have alt text.

Done

• I believe that it should be Jeff Aquilon and not Jeff Aqualon. I would recommend checking the spelling of the last name to make sure about this.

Done

• I would add an introductory phrase for John Duka. I would also recommend doing the same for Herbert Muschamp, so readers would not have to click on a link to figure out his identity. I have a similar comment for John Belushi.

For Duka and Muschamp, these follow "was described in The New York Times", so implicit that they're both writers for the NYT. I added "actor" to Belushi.

I see. Thank you for clarifying that. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe this is because I have never been to New York, but I do have a question about the downtown New York link. Why not just say Lower Manhattan? That is the article title after all, and that seems clearer to me, but again, I actually know very little about New York other than some incredibly vague details.

They're more or less synonyms, but when talking about culture, "downtown" just feels like the right word, and it's what pretty much all of the sources use.

That is fair. Again, I am not really familiar with New York, so I thought that I might as well ask about this. I agree that it would be best to go with the wording commonly used in the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have a question about this part, even at a price described as "nominal". Who is describing the price as "nominal"?

Added "he"

• What happened to the Sontag lawsuit?

I've never seen anything that explicitly says so, but I assume it never went anywhere after the paper folded. But researching this did lead me to another good source about the suit, which I've added. So that worked out well.

I am glad that you were able to find another source. It is always nice when that sort of things happens. And your explanation makes sense to me. It seems like a lot of these lawsuits do not really go anywhere for these instances. Thank you for looking into it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Magazine titles, such as SoHo Weekly News, should be in italics for the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

Done

I hope that these comments are helpful. This is what I noticed on a first read-through. After everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to see if there is anything else to add to my review. I have made a series of minor edits to the article while looking over things. I hope that you are having a great start to your week, and best of luck with the peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think that takes me through all of your specific comments. They (and the edits you made) were very useful and highly appreicated. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I have left replies above, but to sum it all up here, I agree with your rationale and I appreciate your explanations for everything. I will look through the article sometime over the course of this week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Would it be worthwhile to mention Marcia Resnick in the article? She worked as a photographer for The SoHo Weekly News. I learned about her after running across a New Yorker article that focused on her. I was wondering if she should be added to the "Staff" section in any capacity. From my admittedly more outside perspective, she does seem notable. She has her own Wikipedia article and had seemingly done significant things for the newspaper, namely doing the last studio shoot for John Belushi. There is further information on Resnick in her obituary.
• I have a similar question about Andy Grundberg, who worked as a critic for the SWN. I learned about him after running across his article for The American Scholar, in which he brings up the SWN. Would it be worthwhile to bring him up in the "Staff" section as well?
• I ran across the following journal article, which mentions how feminists publications, such as Majority Report, had criticized The SoHo Weekly News for misogyny, specifically over its coverage of Norma Bahia Pontes. I would think that this source would be useful for the article. Was there any other coverage on misogyny in the SWN? I would think that this type of context would provided a fuller account of the newspaper and how it was perceived during its publication.

I hope that these comments are helpful. I did some further digging to see if there was anything that could be added to the article. I was wondering if Marcia Resnick and Andy Grundberg should be included in the "Staff" section, as they both seemed notable enough to be mentioned. I had also run across criticism of the newspaper for its misogyny, so I was curious if there any further information about that. I believe that this should be it for me, but I will post further comments if I notice anything else. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having a great start to the week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added Resnick. I'm still looking at Grundberg to see what's there. A long time ago I had a list of SWN alumni in the article, but was persuaded to tear it out (Special:Diff/1183183634). What I'm trying to do now is be a little more selective about who I mention. The Pontes thing looks interesting, I'll need to do a bunch of reading on that, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I have not worked on a newspaper article before, so this is outside of my area of expertise, but I can understand the removal of the alumni section, particularly since this information could be covered through Category:SoHo Weekly News people. I can also understand keeping mentions and discussions about specific staff members restricted to the more notable figures. I trust your judgement about this, as you have more experience with this. And thank you for looking into the Pontes/misogyny issue. I am not sure if there is anything beyond this one article, but I wanted to bring it to your attention just in case, as it did seem interesting and relevant. Aoba47 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I found the full text of the Pontes paper. I appreciate you finding it for me, but it really seems like a leap to go from the one minor mention of SWN to a more general statement like "feminist publications criticized SWN for misogyny". RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clearer in my comment. I ran into this one source, and based on that, I was wondering if there was any further coverage or further reports on the SWN and misogyny. I agree that if it is just this one source, then it would not be enough, but I just wanted to point this out and to ask you if there is anything further. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

And just for further clarification, I agree that the source by itself would not be as useful for the article. I had thought that maybe it would be more helpful, but it would be more beneficial if there was further coverage on this subject. If this is an isolated incident, then I would ignore it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Hi, following your very helpful reviews of articles I've worked on, I hope this can be helpful too. I have stuck to prose and the MoS, where I can be of most use.

Taking up your invitation to fix small things directly, I have made a few uncontroversial corrections: a "where" that should be "were", a broken italic span that ran Eraserhead into the next sentence, a missing "as" in the DienerHauser-Greenthal sentence and a missing comma after Michael Goldstein at the start of the body.

The paper as "it" or "they". The article moves between the two for SWN itself: a Loft of the Week feature in which they highlighted opulent residences and their circulation was 60,000 sit next to it grew to over 100 pages and positioned itself as a competitor. A publication usually stays singular in American English, so settling on "it" throughout might read more cleanly?

I need to think on this. I had already changed a few theys to its. Looking at the remaining ones, I'm not entirely sure what is the right thing to do. Just changing them all to "it" would leave some strange sounding text. The New York Times I notice, uses "they".

A bit of research says to use "it" when referring to the paper itself, and "they" when referring to the paper's staff. I think that's kind of what I was doing intuitively, but I'll make a pass through to clean that up.

A proper name. by the American Ballet Theater: the company spells its own name "Theatre", and proper names keep their spelling regardless of an article's variety, so this could simply be American Ballet Theatre unpiped. (The common-noun "theatre critic" uses elsewhere I would leave as they are; "theatre" is a defensible spelling and you are consistent with it.)

Fixed

Weight of the Benvenuti section. A judgement call rather than a fault: the "Henry Benvenuti incident" has its own top-level section of three paragraphs, most of it about Benvenuti rather than the paper. Does it merit that much room against the paper's own output, or might it read better trimmed or folded in?

I'll also need to think on this. It is certainly the most widely reported thing about SWN (although, at this point, its coverage in our article is probably driving search results). So I think it deserves attention, but I'll see if I can trim it a bit.

Minor. The previous year's loss is given as $1.7 million in "Decline and shutdown" and $2 million (Leese, on operations) in "Final decision", with a $6 million total elsewhere; different sources, I take it, but the two figures for the same year may give a reader pause.

Yeah, that's a problem. I'll see what I can do to clean that up.

Metalicat I took another look at this and ultimately decided to leave it as is. Three different sources gave three different numbers, using (as far as I can tell) two different accounting methods (loss on operations vs total losses) but there's not enough in the sources to really say for sure. So just reporting the numbers without comment seems like the best course of action. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That is all I can usefully add. It is a good read and clearly in solid shape. Metalicat (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

"Positioned"

• Positioned as a competitor to The Village Voice, it struggled financially.

I'm not entirely sure what "positioned" is intended to mean here. Is the idea that the paper marketed itself as a competitor, or that Goldstein founded it with the intention of competing with The Village Voice, or that it came to be regarded as a competitor by some people? To me, it feels unnecessarily ambiguous and perhaps a bit like marketing or journalistic language than encyclopedic. @RoySmith What do the sources actually say? BorgQueen (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. That's the word used by the NY Times: "Michael R. Goldstein ... is positioning his newspaper as a direct competitor of the successful Village Voice." RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I've clarified it accordingly. BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Many SWN staff, 80 percent of whom were freelance in 1976, had notable careers before or after their association with the paper.

Is the intent to say that 80 percent of the entire SWN staff were freelancers in 1976, or that 80 percent of the staff members being discussed (80 percent of the "Many" of the staff) here were freelancers? The relative clause modifies "Many SWN staff". BorgQueen (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The former (Source: "Mr. Goldstein is proud of the investigative stories turned out by his staff, about 80 percent of whom are freelance.") I can see the possible ambiguity that you're describing, but I think it's reasonably clear as written. I'm not opposed to a rephrasing but I tried a few ways and they all sounded clunky. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Did some rearranging RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Much better now. BorgQueen (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:MONEY: In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. I've added {{Inflation}} to some in the article but when the amount is millions it requires a slightly different format, I believe. (See {{Inflation}}) BorgQueen (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)