Talk:Henry Adams Thompson

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry Adams Thompson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. -- Saskoiler (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (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.	The prose of this article is fantastic. It reads very smoothly, with consistent grammar throughout. Very well done. This is how all Wikipedia articles should read. I have only a few minor suggestions for improvement. See below: "Prose" (Update: The suggestions have all been addressed.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead - The lead provides an accessible, concise overview of the article. It touches on major facts in a balanced way and reads very well. Layout - Organization is intuitive. Sections are chosen well, and titled appropriately. Words to watch - No problems found. Fiction - n/a List incorporation - n/a There is compliance with MoS guidelines in all five areas.
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.	A list of 27 references are listed in the "References" and "Sources" sections. Remarkable research to locate all of these. Bravo!
	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).	All facts and opinions are supported with in-line citations. Very thorough and comprehensive. I checked every online source which I was able to check, and found no problems.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There's no evidence of original research. All statements in the article reflect the sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of this topic (early life, educational career, political life, later life) are covered in a reasonable manner.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article's focus is appropriate. The various sections strike a good balance. For example, given that his political career was ultimately not very successful, it is sensible that his professional pursuits carry approximately equal weight across this article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is presented from a rationale, balanced point of view. There's no editorial bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. I hasn't been touched at all in the past month, and before that was a burst of editing which led to this GA nomination. No evidence of edit war or 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.	There are three images in this article. All are in the public domain due to their age, and their copyright status is noted. All okay.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All three images are very relevant to this article. Good hunting! Two of the captions are fine. I have a question about the third. See below: "Images" (Update: The question has been addressed.)
	7. Overall assessment.	There is no doubt that this article is GA-quality. The prose is inviting and easy to read. The citations have been thoroughly researched and compiled. The different aspects of Thompson's life story are balanced well. There are only a small number of issues identified below. Once those are addressed, I will have no problem passing this GA review. Update: All issues have been satisfactorily addressed. This article now meets the GA criteria, and I will close this review as "passed".

Items to Address

The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.

Images

• The first image is captioned "... Otterbein College President". Why does this caption use "Otterbein College", but the rest of the article uses "Otterbein University". One of the primary sources (Garst, 1907) is titled "Otterbein University..." Seems like the caption is wrong, then?
  • They changed the name a few times between "college" and "university". I just took out the title from the caption altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• Lead paragraphs
  • "American" missing? I think the first sentence ought to include the adjective "American". (For example, articles for the other three 1880 VP candidates all have "American" in the lead sentence: Chester A. Arthur, Barzillai J. Chambers, William Hayden English.) Although it is fairly obvious if you read further, I think it would remove ambiguity immediately and make it clear we aren't talking about a Canadian prohibitionist, a British prohibitionist, or any other country. Recommend: "... was an American prohibitionist and professor..."
  • There feels like a bit of unnecessary repetition in the lead, with one sentence having "... ran for several offices... but without success." and a later sentence having "... ran for office several times... all without success." I think this could be pared down to fewer words without any loss of meaning or impact. How about this?

"Initially a Republican, he became an early member of the Prohibition Party. His attempt at election to the vice presidency in 1880, running on a ticket with Neal Dow of Maine, was the party's best showing to date, but they still placed a distant fourth to the eventual winners, James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. He ran for office under the Prohibition banner several other times before and after 1880, all without success."

• Both those changes make sense to me. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Early life and educational career
  • Re: "... with a bachelor's degree..." -- The cited source doesn't mention any specific type of degree. It says "Henry Adams Thompson, a graduate of Jefferson (now Washington and Jefferson) College, Pennsylvania, class of 1858." From where is the type of degree being inferred? Should it be removed with no real loss of impact?

• Good catch--I added a source that confirms is was a B.A. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Re: "... began teaching the same subject..." -- I assume mathematics, but it's slightly ambiguous which subject is meant here, since there have been several lines of prose since mathematics was last mentioned. Furthermore, Garst 1907 (p. 306) states that he was teaching both mathematics and natural science for 1862-1866, and then mathematics and logic and rhetoric for 1866-1867. Recommend clarifying this, along with adding a citation to page 306.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Political career
  • "... Neal Dow of Maine, the author of one of the nation's first municipal prohibition laws." -- Minor point, but we list a state affiliation in conjunction with a claim-to-fame related to a municipal law. Would it make sense to reword this and include which municipality he was associated with? I assume this is Maine, but the prose has me wanting more. (I like the mention of Maine here, because so much of the rest of the article centers on Ohio. The inclusion of Maine hints that this wasn't an Ohio-only party... or even a Midwest-only party.)

• Done (it was Portland). --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "... but still polled just over 10,000 votes out of more..." -- Would "received just over 10,000 votes" be simpler and more straightforward?

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "... for elective office in 1887..." -- Should that be "elected office"?

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "Despite the growing popularity of the idea of Prohibition..." -- I'm not an authority in this area, but it feels like prohibition should not be capitalized there. (It is in lower-case several other times in this article when not used as "Prohibition Party".

• I think you're right. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• General
  • We mention the year/month/day of his death in prose in "Later life", but we only mention the year of his birth in "Early life...". This seems inconsistent. Recommend changing one or the other. (Note, both precise dates are given in the first sentence of the lead.)

• I added the full date for his birth. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

-- Saskoiler (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think that's everything, Saskoiler. Thank you for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. Thanks for writing articles at such a high level of quality. Saskoiler (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)