Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Right cite (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 16, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I read over the article and there is not much in the way of talk page history but I also read through the previous form of review available which was at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Plankinton. EdChem provided good feedback at that time. The article is well written. It could stand to have some more copyediting from the guild of copyeditors or a peer review or both, if it wants to have a shot at featured article, but the writing quality is good enough for good article at this point in time.

2. Verifiable?: Every fact in the article is appropriately cited with citations. Citations are of a high quality and include magazines, historical societies, archived newspapers, and books. The citations appropriately demarcate where the references may be obtained. I like how the lede notes citations for the alternate names used. I also like how the infobox has citations for ease of use for the facts about the brother and sister. It is clear that a lot of research went into the subject matter. Good job.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers all major aspects of the subject's life, including: Biography, Elizabeth Plankinton House, Philanthropy, Milwaukee Washington monument, and, Later life. Before featured article consideration, I would suggest expanding a little bit more about "In 2016–2018, the statue was extensively restored.", if there was any more source coverage about that process.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article goes into depth and detail about its subject. But in so doing it is not overly praiseworthy or negative. It is written in a neutral tone. The article presents the facts as they are. It meets WP:NPOV.

5. Stable? No talk page history to speak of. Good discussion as per normal processes at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Plankinton, where all issues were addressed there. Article history shows great work by Doug Coldwell.

6. Images?: Image review check passes. All images are free use. All images are licensed appropriately. All images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Great job overall.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Right cite (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Right cite. I am glad to see an article that Doug and I worked on reach GA. This does remind me, though, of an unfortunate aspect of the GA process, that the nomination / "credit" goes to one editor. In this case, as the page statistics confirm, the article is over 90% written by Doug or myself and yet we don't both get to be credited. To me, the GA process should allow for multiple authors / editors to be credited with the achievement of the article making GA status. Note, this is not to suggest that Doug Coldwell has done anything wrong or is undeserving of credit, just that this aspect of the GA system is irritating to me. EdChem (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

●Was a great read and we'll sourced.....but this GA Review seems lacking in detail.--Moxy 🍁 05:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]