Talk:Horace Smithy

Potential image

There are a few images that come up on a Google Images search. Here is one site that has a pretty good picture. I am always messing up fair-use images in some way (like leaving them too large, not cropping them quite right, or leaving off some important fair-use detail), but if someone would like to add one, I think that would be great. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disregard. I cropped and included the image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I can take this on over the next few days. Sorry for the two-month wait in the GAN queue. Ajpolino (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ajpolino. I’m looking forward to your feedback, but there is certainly no hurry on my end. I submitted a handful of GA noms in a short time, so it was actually a good thing that all of them did not get picked up for review at the same time. Thanks again! Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'll add my comments piecemeal as I have the time this week. You're welcome to act on them as they're posted, or wait until the whole batch is done. Your call. I hope all is well on your end. Ajpolino (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally found a moment to check the references and finish this up. Sincere apologies for the long wait; chunks of free time were hard to come by this week. Thank you for the interesting read! What a sad story. As with your other GA that I reviewed some months ago, it's a shame that there aren't available images. I'll poke around. [1] got images from the MUSC library, so perhaps we'll have similar luck (though of course, my efforts last time have so far borne no fruit). I hope you're doing well during these tumultuous times! All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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):

• Early life - ... and the former Rosalia McCormick - I assume this is meant to indicate McCormick is his mother's maiden name? Something about "the former" was jarring to read and took my brain a moment to decode. I somewhat arbitrarily checked the last couple of biography FAs (1 and 2) to see how articles that have had many eyes on their prose describe the same: both use née. If you're an anti-née guy, I think just saying "Horace Smithy Sr. and Rosalia McCormick" is equally clear.
• Early life - Same as the above with ... the former Sarah Rankin.
• Betty Lee Woolridge - ...heart valve damage related to having contracted rheumatic fever = "damage from rheumatic fever" or "damage related to rheumatic fever" (you can safely trim a few words without losing meaning).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• I don't have access to all the newspaper articles, so I'll trust you on those. I spot-checked a handful of the references to [2] and the one to [3] and they looked good. I don't see any copyright or plagiarism issues either.

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):

Overall:

Pass/Fail: