Talk:James Caudy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is just about there; I have only one or two minor concerns to address prior to passing it for GA.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The first sentence of the Settlement in Virginia section needs a slight tweak, but that minor niggle aside I see no glaring issues with the prose. It's perhaps a little turgid in places (constant references to locations make it a bit difficult to read fluidly), but there's nothing that would prevent it meeting the GA criteria. The lead needs a tiny bit of work to cover his later life and death in order to fully summarise the article's content. I'm dubious about the external links to YouTube; I can't check these right now but I suspect the linked videos may be a copyright violation. I'll investigate more fully when I can.

I've tweaked the first sentence of that section. I've also consolidating some internal citations and have removed unnecessary citations in the process--this should slightly remedy this issue with the fluidity of the prose. I've also expanded the lead to include content on his later life and legends surrounding his burial. The external links to You Tube are narrated accounts by local historians of the events at Caudy's Castle rock--they were produced by the local newspaper, Hampshire Reivew. I thought they would be of interest to readers, but I have no qualms with removing these if they are a hindrance to GA status. -- Caponer (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the lead looks fine now. I'll take a look at the YouTube videos tonight and check them over - if there are copyright issues I'll need to take them out anyway, and if there aren't then there's no problem. Either way, you can expect a pass on the MOS criteria straight afterwards. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the video's are okay - they're very clearly made by and uploaded by Hampshire Review.com, and so I don't see that there's any copyright issue. So a pass on the External Links - which means a pass on the MOS criterion and a pass overall! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
A couple of the sources may not meet WP:RS; Kerns, for example, appears to be self-published, and I'm unsure about Wirtz (I've not encountered Bartleby Press before, and need to research them a bit). I can't access the sources' content, but I'm happy to AGF that they do indeed verify the information in the article.

Wilmer L. Kerns is a noted historian in the U.S. states of Virginia and West Virginia, and he has conducted years of research on the history of Hampshire County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Virginia. WP:RS should be more inclusive for histories of places that are not widely covered by other authors. Because nobody else is writing books about the history of West Virginia, West Virginians have taken it upon themselves to write that history. The book has thorough internal citations to the records and resources utilized to construct his historic narratives. Within the article, there are other references for the information that cites Kerns, so if it is a deal breaker for GA status, I can remove these references. -- Caponer (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been doing some poking around on that very subject. Kerns also publishes through Heritage Books Inc. - whilst they seem to set a fairly low bar for submissions, it does appear that they provide at least some sort of editorial oversight, which suggests he know what he's doing. I don't know that I'd class him as a "noted historian" - he's only written three books, none with a major publisher - but self-published works are permitted as long as the author's work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, and I reckon Heritage Books meets that requirement. I've also established that Bartleby have an editorial system in place, so I reckon Wirtz is okay too. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No worries here, this is a comprehensive overview of Caudy's life that's well within the appropriate scope.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Nothing that rings any alarm bells with regards to neutrality.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars or major controversies.
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):
Images are tagged as free use and appropriately formatted and captioned. I'm not entirely sure of the need for the image of Washington, but that's more my opinion than anything else.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Only a couple of minor niggles; this is pretty much there.~~ All identified issues have been fixed, this is good to promote.

Yunshui, I'd like to thank you tremendously for taking the time from your busy schedule to thoroughly review this article. I greatly appreciate your guidance and your comments, and I feel honored to have the opportunity to work with you throughout this Good Article review process! Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues with this article in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. Based on the above, the YouTube videos are the only thing that might still be an issue; once that's put to bed I'll pass te article for GA. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]