Talk:Dr. Samuel Mitchel Smith and Sons Memorial Fountain/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 09:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "and the first academic professor for the treatment of the mentally ill." — Mention if that is for Ohio or the US.

Done. ɱ (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Grant Medical Center" and "Ohio State University" — link them.

First one done, second one - OSU is mentioned and provided with a link earlier. I know it's not the same target, but you are only supposed to link the first mention. I could split that first link, but I don't see it necessary here really. ɱ (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Description

• "The bronze sculpture of Dr. Samuel Mitchel Smith (1816–1874) was sculpted by Columbus artist William Walcutt." — Mention the year in which it was sculpted since this part about Walcutt isn't mentioned in the "History" section.

Done. ɱ (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Smith later became a dean of the school." — Use "the dean" instead of "a dean", and mention the year in which he became the dean.

Colleges can have several deans, no? I did add the years. ɱ (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "He was also the first real academic professor for the treatment of the mentally ill" — Use a different word than "real". I suppose it suggests that he was the first officially designated academic professor for the treatment of the mentally ill? Perhaps use "first" as used in the "Lead". Also, mention if he was the "first" in Ohio or the US?

This is just what the source said, but I can specify based on this new source I added. ɱ (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Smith's pioneering ideas made his statue a place local psychiatrists honored him in 1987." — This sentence is a bit convoluted. Perhaps write something like "In 1987, local psychiatrists honored him for his pioneering ideas at his statue."? If that is the intended meaning of the sentence. Also, move it to the "History" section; it is more of a historical fact rather than a statue description.

Done. ɱ (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

History

• "Broad and High Streets", "Grant Medical Center", "Columbus Health Department", "Ohio State University's", "Atlanta", and "Durham" — link them.

Linked most - OSU again is mentioned and linked in the description section, not sure if you want another? Also the city links are not necessary per WP:OL, they're not too relevant. Perhaps maybe Durham, but Atlanta as one of the top US cities isn't really necessary. ɱ (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Police claimed he and others were looking to steal a statue of President James A. Garfield." — Mention "Columbus police", if it were them. Since "Durham police" is mentioned earlier, it is better to clarify.

Done. ɱ (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Second picture of the section — mention the year in which it was taken.

Done. ɱ (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The building opened in March 1994 with the statue in mind" — remove "in mind".

The building actually opened before the statue was finished with restoration and thus ever installed. However, OSU had planned for the statue to be placed there once finished with the restoration, see the note about the foundation. ɱ (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Gallery

• Mention names of his sons in the caption.

I really would prefer to keep the single line appearance. I could easily say more about each of the images, but the full informative text is in the body. For the sons, reading like "Right side, his son Samuel", the caption would extend to three broken lines of text, which would look terrible, and even then still not be that clear as there are two Samuels. ɱ (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This was a short and nice read. That will be all for now and it should pass. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, will get to these points as soon as possible. ɱ (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Final

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It is a short and good read. It covers every major aspect that there is to cover and it meets the criteria. — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

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.