Talk:Louis B. Seltzer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns previously enumerated under "Images", "Well-written" and "Breadth" have all been resolved and this article passed to GA status. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This bio, though concise, seems to be well on its way to meeting the criteria for GA status. (For the record, I started this review offline on FEB12 and am copying/pasting it into the form today, FEB14.) DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

No links need DAB’ing.

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lede for an article of this length should be “one or two paragraphs”. Generally, I think this lede goes into too much detail as well.
- Done Bobnorwal (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are inline citations in the lede that are supported in the body of the article and can, therefore, be removed.
- Done Bobnorwal (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS we need to use logical quotation for commas (and periods). Some commas (and periods) in the article need to be moved outside quotation marks.
- I don't understand what you mean. Can you point out what specifically you want me to change? Bobnorwal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for instance, this - As editor of the Press, Seltzer emphasized the public service aspect of the paper and "vigorously developed the notion that his reporters were watchdogs for the public over political and governmental affairs." - should read like this - As editor of the Press, Seltzer emphasized the public service aspect of the paper and "vigorously developed the notion that his reporters were watchdogs for the public over political and governmental affairs". See MOS:LQ. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that one and one or two others. Did I get all of them? Bobnorwal (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobnorwal There are a few others:

...that "fought like hell for the people."
... was "a frequently unemployed carpenter and a totally unsuccessful writer of romantic short stories."
... Seltzer described the Press under his leadership as a "fighting paper" that "fought like hell for the people."
... a municipal zoo, bridges, highways and parks along what was once a dilapidated Lake Erie waterfront."
... were watchdogs for the public over political and governmental affairs."
... private pursuits has doubtless slept like a baby."
... Seltzer enjoyed taking down a peg."
... as a "kingmaker,"
... and Supreme Court Justice Harold H. Burton."

That's everything through the "Kingmaker" section - if you keep working through the rest of the article after that you'll find some more. DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those you mentioned and any others later in the article that I could find. Are there any more that I missed? Bobnorwal (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobnorwal - there are some in the second and third paragraphs of the "Coverage ..." section. I think once those are updated this will be good to go. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Bobnorwal (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the “W” here should be lower-case? in The Wall Street Journal, "With Mr. Seltzer
- Which "W" do you mean? In either case, I respectfully disagree. The "W" in "Wall" is part of a proper noun, and the "W" in "With" is at the start of a sentence. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I misread the source and thought "with" was a mid-sentence quotation. Looks good. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn’t need to be a comma between “his leadership” and “the Press”.
- Done Bobnorwal (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe “Mr. Cleveland” should be bolded unless there is a redirect from that moniker to this?
- Done Bobnorwal (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the references section it would be nice to columnize these so it’s not a big string using the “|2” function.
- Done Bobnorwal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig shows some potential copyvio issues: [1]. This seems largely inadvertent, however, to be thorough maybe just the first, second, and last paragraphs need a very slight adjustment. (The quotes are obviously okay and the other instances are 3-4 word phrases that can only be expressed one way.)
- Done-ish. Please let me know if I have sufficiently changed those sections around enough. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Good job.

“Early life and career” – all claims supported by RS and verified (Cleveland State University and “The Dictionary of Cleveland Biography” [offline, but confirmed])
“Editorship of the Cleveland Press” – all claims supported by RS and verified (F. Lee Bailey book, James Ness book, WaPo, and LIFE, plus previously cited sources)
“Later life and death” – all claims supported by RS and verified (sources previously cited, and some others checked)
No dead external links.

Neutrality

Good job acknowledging both early praise and later criticism.

Stability

No evidence of edit-warring. No active disputes on Talk page.

Images

An additional image would be nice but if we don’t have it, we don’t have it.
- I agree. I've been looking since I started writing this article, but although the Cleveland Memory Project has a bunch of nice ones, they are all under a license that require us to mark them as "fair use" and therefore can only be used sparingly, like at the top of an article to illustrate the article's subject, as I've done with the lone picture in this article. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add an ALT tag to the infobox image.
- Done Bobnorwal (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breadth / scope

I did a Google search, and checked JSTOR, and the treatments I’ve found of Sheppard largely mirror this one for topicality; it doesn’t seem we’re missing any major themes or facts.

I’m somewhat concerned that the Coverage of Sheppard murder may be undue as a percentage of the article’s total length. Could some of this be moved into the linked article? This isn’t a commandment, just a point of discussion. Maybe it shouldn’t.
- I see where you're coming from. I struggled a little with how much to write about the Sheppard trial as I was writing this article. I argue, though, that the portion of this article that is about that shenanigans compares favorably to the coverage of the trial in the sources. Of all the things mentioned in this article, that trial is by far the most widely covered. There are several books about it, and as far as I can tell, all of them talk about Seltzer. I DO have plans to eventually expand the article about the Cleveland Press, and some of the stuff from this article might fit over there. I'd be a-okay with that solution. What'd ya think? Bobnorwal (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's all fine then. DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.