Talk:Rachel Dyer/GA1

GA Review

Passed —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 02:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it - looks interesting! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ganesha811. Thank you very much for reviewing this article! I've responded to all your comments so far, but it looks like you have more reviewing to do. I'll look forward to more comments from you soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article now passes GA. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is usual, I will go through and make any nitpicks I have myself to save us both time, but on first inspection the prose looks good. Hold until my edits complete. Generally good prose; minor issues addressed. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It's not required, but you could add the book's full text (in a public domain edition) to Wikisource and then add links to the full text there to the infobox and later in the article using {{Wikisource}}. I've never taken on a Wikisource transcription project before, but I might in the future. It would be great to have the full text on there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. If you have the time at some point, it would be a great benefit to the reader. In any case, pass for this review.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Why is the introduction from Watts and Carlson listed separately from the whole thing? Because they actually wrote it as opposed to edited it? Precisely. John Neal and Nineteenth Century American Literature and Culture is a collection of works by a variety of scholars, edited by Watts & Carlson. The only part they wrote together is the introduction. Splitting up the source listings in this way was the consensus that came out of the FAC review for John Neal (writer), so I replicated it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Other than that, all sources are reliable, almost all academic. Pass, no other issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, tweaked some wording in prose review to make clear where it is the opinion of a referenced source, not of Wikipedia.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing detected by Earwig, but given mostly inaccessible academic sources that doesn't say much. However, my review of the articles I was able to gain access to did not show any copyright violations. Pass on AGF and spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else of significance to add in sources or elsewhere. Good coverage of a popularly obscure subject that has nevertheless had plenty of academic attention.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Detailed but not unnecessarily so. Any extremely minor issues can be dealt with in the prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality detected.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, stable and no unresolved issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	For File:TheLegendofSalem-Burroughs.jpg I don't see why we can guarantee that we're more than 100 years from the author's death. It's likely, sure, but not certain. On the other hand, it was certainly published before 1927 so PD-US-expired is sufficient. Good point! License updated. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] File:John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale, c. 1823, oil on canvas - Portland Museum of Art - Portland, Maine - DSC04059.jpg was painted in 1823 by someone who died in 1885 but was uploaded by someone who listed it as their "Own Work." This cannot be accurate. Please fix the Commons metadata. This is not really an artistic photograph of art with independent copyright, it falls under Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Pass, issues resolved.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Generally the images and captions are well-chosen, but the connection to Whitman feels a little thin to justify the image of him under "Unpublished Preface". If there are any appropriate images for American literary nationalism in general, that would be ideal, but if not the section can just be un-illustrated. Good point. I removed the image. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Pass, issue resolved.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.