Talk:Edward Everett/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks terrific as usual. It's fascinating to read about these lower-tier historical figures; I've seen Everett's name show up in various contexts before without ever connecting it into a single individual. I have one question that isn't really necessary for GA passage, below. I also made some tweaks as I went for various grammatical or stylistic reasons, and tried to add slightly more context about some of the figures and events mentioned here. If you object to any of it, feel free to revert and we can discuss further.

• "which he believed to be the first such degree awarded to an American" -- this is a fascinating detail, but the phrasing invites the question of whether he was correct or incorrect about this. Does the source take a position on that? Or is there just no way to be sure? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any way to know with any significant certainty. Brief bios of Everett sometimes blithely claim he was the first to receive a PhD; Frothingham was careful to attribute it to Everett's own assertion. Magic♪piano 14:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Congress.gov bio of his life thinks that his turning down a mission to China is worth a bullet point; I assume that's one of the offers he turned down from Webster. It's not main aspect enough to need inclusion for GA, but probably worth mentioning if you expand further.
  • This is presumably one of the posts Webster offered Everett in an attempt to get him out of London. Magic♪piano 14:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the road, I'll get to these in a day or two. Magic♪piano 11:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the images you mentioned below. Thanks for your review! Magic♪piano 14:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure--thank you for all your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues; prose is excellent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	File:George Ticknor print with signature.jpg, File:John Bell and Edward Everett, Constitutional Union Party.jpg, and File:Daguerreotype of Ralph Waldo Emerson.jpg need US public domain tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass