Jump to content

Talk:John H. Hill/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ProfessorDeYaffle (talk · contribs) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This is a clear and intriguing account of a life worth knowing about, with enough detail to inform properly without bombarding the reader with side-issues. That certainly makes for a good article in my view.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I confess I was unaware that US English no longer distinguishes between practice and practise, so I've learned something there! I'm fairly confident that school-teacher should ideally be hyphenated in all variants of English, rather than collapsed to a compound term, but we probably don't need to argue that minor point here.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProfessorDeYaffle, thank you so much for addressing my comment regarding American English. Please let me know if you require any further assistance to complete this review. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProfessorDeYaffle, if you need any assistance with the GA review process, please see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. When reviewing articles, I usually use one of the templates like Template:GAList2 or Template:GATable. Thank you again for performing this review! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to editors above for the nudge to comment further! GA template completed as below.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Reads well with no significant trip-ups.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No obvious stylistic infractions.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    as far as I can ascertain.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Broad enough...
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    ...while also focused enough.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Admirably neutral, I'd say.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Appears stable over a full month so far.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Adequate illustrations given the period.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Pictorial matter relevant.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    It's well put-together and there's really no obvious reason to object. Give it the credit it's due.

Hi, @West Virginian:, I'm here to look at either approving this or giving a few final tips after ProfessorDeYaffle, who missed a few criteria. Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first thing I notice is that the lead is LONG - one of the longest of any article I've seen. It's stretching the limits of MOSLEAD, and should be significantly cut down because the article is relatively short.
  • There are two footnotes in the infobox - the second one (about where he was born) is fine, but the first one is in a banner and so is made smaller - ideally it should be removed from the infobox and just appear at the appropriate point in the article body.
  • The way the article is structured/segmented is strange. Early life and education can stay as one section, then maybe legal and military career, then career as an educator with subsections. I believe Legacy usually goes before personal life, too.
Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsif, thank you again for your review and guidance! I've addressed each of your suggestions in the infobox and text of the article. I slimmed down the lead, so please take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be removed. I really appreciate you taking the time to complete this review. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @West Virginian: Thanks for the work! Re. the lead, perhaps I should have specified more clearly, but this should be no longer than two paragraphs for an article this length. And two reasonably sized paragraphs - the second paragraph in the current is itself very long. Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: I just ran the article through the copyvio detector and it looks fine - this should be good to pass, I think. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_H._Hill/GA1&oldid=979656005"