Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Seavey Hall/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: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 00:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be fun to grab the father-son duo. Thanks for nominating the article, and I'll get the reviews out as soon as I get the chance! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    As a general rule, I'll fix any minor grammar mistakes as I review; if more work is required, I'll mention it below!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Expect this to be one of the last things I check; it's the biggest task, so I want to ensure everything else is in place first!
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This is one of the first criteria I'll try and determine so that the editors/nominators have plenty of time to perfect the article's scope!
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    In my mind, this is maybe the most important criterion; it'll also be one of the first I check!
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Usually, this isn't an issue; assume that this criteria is met unless I mention otherwise somewhere below!
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    This is an important one, but one I tend to find pretty tedious. I'll mention pretty quickly if the article needs more images; the actual investigation of those images is something I'll save for the end of review!
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

First Thoughts

[edit]

I definitely think that this article can, with a bit of work, reach GA criteria; however, there are some issues that ought to be addressed. Grammatically, there are some flaws that need to be taken care of. Overall, I think scope and coverage here are good, though I might need to do a little research on my part to ensure that that's the case. I do see at least one small problem with neutral POV that I'll mention below. The images all seem relevant, though I've yet to check their statuses. Same goes for the different sources that I'll need to check to ensure verifiability. Work definitely needs to be done, but I think we can get to GA status in the end. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just ran a grammar overhaul where I fixed many smaller issues; I'm certain there are more I missed, but it's a start. I'll list larger mistakes below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocem Virtutis (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Unresolved: First Section

[edit]

Lead

"His most popular "Banjo signal" was used on many of the New England railroad systems for decades and increased the efficiency of speed and safety." This sentence could be simplified to "His most popular "Banjo signal" was used on many New England railroad systems for decades and increased speed and safety." Additionally, '"Banjo"' need not be capitalized.


It may be good to add to the lead what year Hall was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame.


Infobox

Information from the Early life section about Hall's parents should be added to the infobox.


William Phillips Hall should be added and wikilinked to the part of the infobox about Hall's children.


Middlebury College should be added and wikilinked to the part of the infobox on Hall's education.


Early life

"He had eight siblings and they were in order that reached maturity Alvah, Joseph, Dudley, Charles, Timothy, David, John, and Mary." I'm not positive that this information is important to keep. Timothy, Dudley, and Alvah are each mentioned later in the article when they need to be. Again, maybe you could add a section to the infobox that just specifies Hall had eight siblings, but I don't think it's necessary to list them all when most are not relevant to the article.


I have a similar criticism regarding ancestor John Hall. The information about him really isn't relevant to an article on Seavey Hall. John Hall lived two centuries before and is not a famous figure in history, so his inclusion here feels unnecessary.


"He left home with his brother Timothy soon after and went 75 miles away to work briefly for Heman Meigs of Claremont, New Hampshire." I think this could be specified a bit. Is he leaving home soon after his graduation from Middlebury? Additionally, I would be interested in what sort of work he was involved in for Meigs, if that information is available.


New York City should be wikilinked.


I went a little independent and cleaned up the last sentence to make it more concise.


Midlife

"Shortly after retiring, he went on a railroad trip, and the train he was traveling on got into a wreck because of a misplaced switch." This sentence could be simplified to "Shortly after retiring, a train he boarded wrecked due to a misplaced switch."


"Fortunately, he was not hurt." I agree that it's fortunate he was not hurt; however, someone else might be very upset that he wasn't hurt. The word "fortunately" makes an objective claim into a subjective one.


"The event inspired him to find a method for warning trains of other trains on the same track and getting a warning in time to do something to prevent a wreck." Again, this sentence is overcomplicated. Maybe "The event inspired him to find a method to warn trains of others on the same track, preventing wrecks."?


"He analyzed the problem and concluded that a practical solution would be some sort of electrical signal. This caused him to develop automatic electric signaling devices." Considering the presence of the second sentence, the first sentence really isn't necessary here and can be removed.


"Hall expanded upon his idea and devised a system to prevent mishaps at open drawbridges and highway crossings and founded Hall Drawbridge & Signal Company of Stamford." I think this may sound a bit less clunky as two sentences.


"The system he had at first involved mechanical moving parts to show the signal." can be simplified to "His first system used mechanical moving parts to show the signal."


"Severe weather of sleet, snow and ice made these devices unreliable." can again be simplified to "Severe sleet, snow, and ice made these devices unreliable."


"Hall's disc banjo signals were used on a variety of applications, including interlocking signals, highway grade-crossing protection, and side rail directors for the train ahead as there was another train approaching." can be simplified to "Hall's disc banjo signals were used for interlocking signals, highway grade-crossing protection, and side rail directors."


"The application as an automatic block signal railroad device was its most significant role and provided efficiency in speed with safety of moving trains." Maybe rework this sentence? I'm honestly not completely sure what the sentence is even referring to.


"Hall received several patents on his most important invention." This is another claim that technically is subjective due to the words "most important".


"The device showed a signal of a train ahead on the same track for the oncoming train through levers tripped and an electrical signal activated the disc device to show a warning." Again, this sentence is just very clunky. Maybe a bit of rewording or dividing it into a couple sentences in due?


"The warning signal for two trains on the same section of track, also known as a block of track, was devised to operate day or night." can be simplified to "The warning signal was devised to operate day or night." The previous sentence already establishes that the warning signal deals with two trains on the same section of track.


"His railroad signaling device was adopted for drawbridges and controlled a circuit controller operated by the movable draw and provided protection for traffic in both directions." Again, I think this might be better reworded into two smaller sentences. Someone who knows about these sorts of devices already would probably understand what's being said here, but I'm very much a layperson, and some of the jargon here is a bit above my head.


"The Eastern Railroad of Massachusetts installed Hall's automatic block-signaling system on sixteen miles of their line by 1871.[11] The New York and Harlem Railroad also had installed his signaling system by 1871.[12]" This is a point where combining the two sentences into one would actually be helpful for the flow of the paragraph.


"Judge Nathaniel Shipman of the United States circuit court in rendering a decision of rival claimants to the credit for the system declared that Hall was "the father of the American plan of automatic electric signaling apparatus for railroads"." Is this sentence saying that there were other claimants who tried to take Hall's credit for inventing these signaling devices? If so, that's actually a really interesting part of this story that could be expanded upon.


"Hall's customers for his signaling system were many of the New England and Midwestern railroads and were used for four decades.[14][15] Some of the early railroads were Boston & Lowell, Eastern Railroad, Boston & Albany, and the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad. Other later railroad customers of his were the Boston & Albany, Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, Lehigh Valley, Illinois Central, Chicago & North Western, and the Oregon Short Line Railroad." I think that the first sentence here probably is enough information. It isn't entirely necessary to list a whole bunch of railroads that all used Hall's specific system.


"Hall had a few competitors to his banjo-style disc signal and one of those was the Union Banner Signal sold by Westinghouse's Union Switch & Signal company." could be simplified just a bit to "Hall had a few competitors to his banjo-style disc signal, such as the Union Banner Signal sold by Westinghouse's Union Switch & Signal company."


Personal life

I might leave out the "considered attractive" detail. It sort of raises the question of who considered him attractive, and since that's a very subjective claim, I'd probably only see it being included if the claim could be traced back to a specific contemporary of Hall's.


"His second wife, Isabelle McCray, also died in childbirth following the birth of her second child." The sentence feels a bit redundant. Maybe it could be simplified to something like "His second wife, Isabelle McCray, also died after the birth of her second child."?


"Hall and Katherine had a family of two sons and two daughters – Melville, William, Mary, and Frances." could be better simplified to "Hall and Katherine had four children together – Melville, William, Mary, and Frances." I do apologize; I know I'm being a bit picky with the filler words, but I really do think that these changes help the flow of the article.


"He had requested that the railroad commissioners set in place laws that those who vandalized his systems that were in place and operating should be punished." I'm a little confused on this point. Would it not already be illegal for someone to vandalize these systems? I feel like there's a piece of information here somewhere that I may be missing.


Later life, death, and legacy

"He died at the age of fifty-two of tuberculosis on December 1, 1880." Did Seavey Hall die at the age of 52? The infobox says that he died at the age of 53. Additionally, regardless of what age he died, any numbers above single digits should be written in numerical form (52 instead of fifty-two).


"Hall Signal Company" should be wikilinked.



Issues Unresolved: Second Section

[edit]

Thanks for getting the first set of work. This second section should be pretty small, mostly just issues I missed on the first runthrough.

Lead

The opening to the lead should note that Hall was born with a different name. If you look at the article for Ulysses S. Grant, it provides an example of introducing someone born with a name different than how they are now known.


Early Life

I fixed a couple more grammar issues, but overall, I think this is quality!


Midlife

"The device showed a signal for a train ahead on the same track of an oncoming train." I'm afraid this sentence is still just a bit clunky. I'm not entirely sure what this is trying to say.


Again, besides a couple nitpicks I've taken care of, I'm happy here!


Personal Life

Same story here! Looks quality to me!


Later life, death, and legacy

Again, I'm pretty happy with this


So, everything considered, I'm going to run through the review of the paper one more time. This article is right on the verge of GA, but I'm going to run through all the criteria one more time. You will see as I mark them as GA quality at the top of the page. Again, thanks for the work you've done here!

  • @Vocem Virtutis: Thanks for being so thorough. It gives a good looking, accurate, quality article as an end result that is very readable and will be enjoyed by a large audience. Did I get everything on the Second Section? Let me know if further improvements are needed. Meanwhile, I'll continue on the issues for William Phillips Hall. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Thoughts

[edit]

Apologies, I know I just hit the article pretty hard, particularly the midlife section. It's not because I don't think the article has potential to be at GA status; I actually very much do. Instead, it's because railroad signaling isn't a topic I, or most readers, would be super familiar with. Due to that, it becomes important to make the grammar as clear and concise as possible so that the reader can think through the system itself instead of the complicated grammar.

Again, thank you for nominating the article! I'm glad that I get to be a small part of this! Please do get back to me in the next couple days to at least let me know you've seen the review, even if you can't revisit the article immediately. Many thanks!

Vocem Virtutis (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Review

[edit]

I am passing this good article review on Thomas Seavey Hall. I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The page sufficiently summarizes Hall's life, and sufficient information is given regarding both his personal life and his work as an inventor. Several pieces of unnecessary information throughout the article have been removed. The sources for the article have been checked wherever possible, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. Vocem Virtutis (talk)

If something catches my eye, I'd be happy to work with you again! Admittedly, the usual topics you cover tend to be a bit out of my wheelhouse, but it was honestly pretty neat to get to learn about something I usually wouldn't; thank you for that opportunity! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Seavey_Hall/GA1&oldid=1106187457"