Talk:American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism, 1865–1900/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Hydrangeans (talk · contribs) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Heavy Grasshopper (talk · contribs) 14:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I'll be reviewing the article. Comments to follow in the table.

Hydrangeans, this is close to passing, and I hope you will not find my comments too onerous. If you can make some changes and respond to my comments where you feel it is necesary, I'm sure we can come to a positive conclusion shortly. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heavy Grasshopper: Thanks very much for the review! The comments weren't too onerous at all. I believe I've implemented the majority of your suggestions.

I moved the order of the first quote box and the multi-image to create more space between the quote boxes. How is that?
I added a couple sentences about Brands and his track record of writing popular histories for the general public. In the content section, I added half a sentence to the last paragraph to identify that some of the secondary sources American Colossus cites are books Brands wrote. Does that help that paragraph read as more complete?
I removed the paragraph about the American Historical Review. If memory serves, I think what I had been trying to do was to get around the sources' elision of the paperback's publication date, but if neither the American Historical Review or Civil War Book Review will come out and say that the 2011 edition received was a paperback (in the former's case) or that the paperback was published in 2011 (in the latter's case), maybe it's better to just let that go.
I did leave the price conversions in, as you described it as a minor point, but if you find you feel strongly I could still remove them.
As for the book cover, I'm afraid I didn't encounter direct commentary on any cover of the book, so it is primarily there for identifying purposes.

If there's anything else you need about this article for the review process, feel free to ping me again. Thanks! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm happy with the changes and will pass as GA now. Thanks for bringing this article into the world. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good clear concise prose. I couldn't see any spelling or grammar issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead covers the major points of the article, and does not feature anything that is not covered in the body of the article. The layout of the article is ~~mostly~~ user friendly. ~~I felt the two boxed quotes from the author were potentially a bit too close together and could be adjusted slightly.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine on this criterion, I did not find any issues with verifiability when checking the sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are well chosen, reviews are clearly indicated and quotes are clear throughout.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is clearly sourced and well cited, there is no editorialising on the part of the nominator.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism found. Quotation marks are used to clearly indicate passages from reviews and the work itself.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I sense potential for expansion in the last two sentences of the Content section, which feel a bit unfinished, though the reception section does tackle this to some extent, with further context being given by the reviews. Some readers (including myself) may also want more background on Brands, perhaps a sentence or two more. Resolved satisfactorily.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Despite the relatively short length of the article, there are some minor details which feel superfluous to me. The fact that the American Historical Review received a copy of the book and proceeded not to review it, seems like an empty point- is there a reason why that is notable or interesting? . The repeated currency conversions in the publication section feel slightly clunky (and unnecessary, given this was only published 14 years ago) to me, but if prices are going to be converted, I suppose you've got to do them all. I am keen to point out that these are minor points. All these minor points have been addressed satisfactorily, the currency conversion has been retained which is fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Opinions in the reviews are all clearly cited and the use of wikivoice in the article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nominator is responsible for the vast majority of edits on the page. Certainly a stable page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Although WP:NFC#UUI may be stricter regarding book covers, I find the justifications provided reasonable. The image of the book cover is low-res and has no equivalent with which it could be replaced. If the cover were to be discussed in some way in the article, the fair use rationale would be strengthened even further, but that depends on a source discussing the cover being found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well captioned and relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	All items have been addressed satisfactorily, and I am happy to pass this article as meeting the criteria.

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.