Talk:Louisa Adams/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article, part of a number I see on the First Ladies of the United States. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 78.6% of authorship is by Thebiguglyalien. It is currently assessed as a B class article.

The article is of reasonable length, with 3,547 words of readable prose.
The lead is a reasonable length at 429 words.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
The text seems clear and neutral, with a fair reflection of different perspectives of her life.
My spellchecker says that re-elected and re-election are hyphenated.
- Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
Link John Adams.
- Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking President of the United States and United States Congress.
- I don't see any place where it's talking about the presidency in general as opposed to specific presidencies. Linked Congress in the lead and the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. simongraham (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove duplicate link to White House.
- Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig gives a 6.5% chance of copyright violation, which is extremely low.
All accessible sources seem live.
The sources seem extensive and generally comprehensive. However, there are a few biographies, that are listed in Further reading, that have not been cited. For example, Heffron's Louisa Catherine: The Other Mrs. Adams (which is edited by David F. Michelmore) seems to provide some insights that are not in the sources used. It seems to be available in Google books if you would like to look at an online version.
- My workflow with these articles has been to include one or two full length biographies before nominating for GA, then going back and checking other biographies if and when I nominate for FA to meet its comprehensiveness requirement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Intruiging. Good luck with the future FA nomination. simongraham (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two editions of the First Ladies: A Biographical Dictionary used. Is there a reason for this?
- Two different books with similar titles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a bit confusing. simongraham (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hudson Parsons 1996 lacks the chapter title (Louisa (Catherine Johnson) Adams etc).
- Added. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the Smithsonian are the portraits themselves. Is there a listing of the collections that can be used?
- None that I'm aware of, though I'm not terribly familiar with sourcing art provenance or collections. This is something I left in from before I started editing the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - There seem to be some available, including some online. Do either this[[1]], this[[2]] or this[[3]] help? simongraham (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm only able to access a portion of the first one and neither of the other two. Though I don't see why the Smithsonian website isn't a reliable source for what's owned by the Smithsonian. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a hill I am prepared to die on. WP:PRIMARY allows for reputably published primary sources.
The references to the rankings by Kelly, 2008, and Levy, 2014, lack the authors' names and page numbers.
- To my knowledge, these were created and published by the institute as a whole and that's just contact information for the institute's director at the given time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds reasonable. Please add page numbers. simongraham (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Page numbers added. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you.
Spot checks of Allgor et al 2016, Boller 1988 and Thomas 2016 confirm all mention the topic.
The images seem appropriate and relevant.
All the remaining images have relevant PD tags.
Suggest adding ALT tags for accessibility.

@Thebiguglyalien: Great work so far on this. Please look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham, I've made changes to the article and replied to your comments where applicable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: That all looks excellent. Nearly there. simongraham (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham I've replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Thebiguglyalien. I will start an assessment now.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2023 (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.