Talk:Red Cross stove

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Red Cross stove was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 21, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Red Cross stove appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Red Cross (pictured) is a kitchen stove?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Red Cross stove.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Cross stove/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has only one section, "history". The first paragraph of this section is a mishmash of different factoids crammed together and badly sourced, so badly written that it made me wonder whether it was generated by software that read and tried to digest sources rather than by an actual person. First we have the stove manufactured by a certain company, then we have a claim that their catalog featured a red cross sourced to an article about a calendar (not catalog), then we have that "they" (the red-cross catalogs?) came as two different types of stove sourced only to ebay, then "it" (the oil burners?) "eventually" went out of business in 1930 (as opposed to going out of business in some other way?), then (all in the same paragraph) we start going through the history of the company again from its foundation, among which we learn that the stove was actually manufactured earlier by a different company. Then after talking about two different companies we have that "the company" prospered (which one?) at an unspecified time.

The first footnote, giving a date range for manufacture of this stove, goes to p. 54 of "Rochester's Leaders and Their Legacies", which actually has two captioned photos of Rochester trolley cars. The name of the company, included in the same supposedly-sourced sentence ("Co-Operative Foundry"), appears nowhere in this book, and in fact the word foundry appears nowhere in this book. Three separate footnotes go to "Engineering Publications, p. 92", which actually appears to be an ad for angled pipe by an unrelated company.

Unlike some of the nominator's other many recent GA nominations I didn't find any inappropriately close paraphrasing, I think mainly because the only in-depth source recent enough to be in copyright ("Rochester's Leaders and Their Legacies") didn't have any text that was close to relevant.

This is so far from passing GACR 1 (well written), GACR 2 (appropriately sourced), and probably (if it were well enough written to even tell) GACR 3 (covers the whole subject in appropriate detail) that I think it qualifies for WP:GAFAIL 1 ("a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria"). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]