Jump to content

Talk:Westinghouse Time Capsules/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: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Your GA nomination of Westinghouse Time Capsules

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Westinghouse Time Capsules you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.


GA Review

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Reviewer Comments:
    1. The lead section is missing commas, or other bracketing, for the separation of appositives per WP:,. The lack of these separations results in the sentences appearing confusing and run-on like.  Resolved 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    2. The sentence under 1939 Time Capsule I "He added then the only pencil handwritten page in the capsule that listed items in it that were represented by 20th century women, such as culinary preparation tracts and women's exploits noted in World Almanacs and film," is copywritten in a confusing syntax.  Works for me 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    3. The electromagnetic detection method under Location of the two time capsules is written inappropriately for a "generally broad audience". While detail, as written, can be included, it would be better to indicate that the method outlined is a description of how to create a rudimentary metal detector, as is described by the title of that section in the book of record. Works for me 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Reviewer Comments:
    1. Per MOS:RELTIME the phrase "common objects of the time" should be more specific.  Resolved 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    Reviewer Comments:
    1. The citations for Capsule Contents 1965 Time Capsule II contains only 1 citation that does not reference the dispensing of buttons to guest book signers, nor the categories listed above.  Works for me 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    2. No citation is provided for the chemical makeup of Kromarc under the last paragraph of the Construction section, as is provided in the previous paragraph regarding the composition of Cupaloy. The surrounding citations do not provide verification either, at least to my findings.  Resolved 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    3. The first 2 paragraphs of 1965 Time Capsule II are mostly uncited, except for ref 11 regarding glass vials. Sources that would verify the content are cited elsewhere in the article, however, unlike in the rest of the article, inline references are not provided.  Resolved 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    c (OR):
    Reviewer Comments: I applaud Doug Coldwell for finding sources from a variety of outlets. While much of this article could simply cite the Westinghouse Book of Record, the addition of other sources from media and other publications eliminates the potential for WP:OR.
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Reviewer Comments: No evident WP:CV or WP:PLAG violations per Earwig's tool. All quotes and paraphrases are cited appropriately, except as noted in 2b.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    Reviewer Comments: This article encompasses most all of the elements needed to cover the main aspects of this topic.
    b (focused):
    Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable, except for as noted under 1a(III).
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Reviewer Comments: This article does not outline any particular controversy, and is neutral in all other regards, per WP:WTW.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable. No evidence of instability.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    Reviewer Comments: All images are in compliance with WP:CV and non-free content is appropriately licensed.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Reviewer Comments:
    1. All the images under Future languages section, with the exception of "Mouth Map" are uncaptioned.  Resolved 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    2. The images of signatures under Messages are uncaptioned.  Works for me 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    3. The captions for the 1939 and 1965 monuments are not integrated into the image source, and are minimal in content. While they identify which marker appeared at which time, it does not provide sufficient descriptive content which is warranted of a caption.  Works for me 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    4. Image of the inscription on the side of the 1938 capsule is missing a caption. Given the transcription beneath, this can be overlooked if the above criteria are satisfied.  Works for me 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Reviewer Comments: All outstanding items have been addressed.

· · ·

Additional Remarks

[edit]

Lead section

[edit]

The lead section of this article is written with very minimal punctuation given the complexity of sentence structure. It is well written, however, at times can be confusing due to the lack of breaks in voice. This is particularly prominent in the first sentence of the article where "prepared by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company" runs into the rest of the sentence. Please consider proofreading or copywriting the lead for grammar in this regard. Additionally, the term "common objects of the time" is confusing as the date of capsule preparation had not been yet been established. In fact, the date of capsule preparation is not included at all in the lead. I would strongly suggest this given that time capsules are inherently dependent on... well... time.

 Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Verified Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there are many opportunities to add additional WikiLinks in the lead, and although it is beyond the scope of GA criteria, it should be considered for future revisions of the article.

 Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Verified Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

[edit]

I would consider amending the title of this section to "Background and Construction", or something to include the details of the first paragraph as they do not relate directly to construction, and instead serve the purpose of providing background information on the capsules. Especially the last sentence of that paragraph: "The term "time capsule" was coined by George Edward Pendray for the 1939 World's Fair Westinghouse exhibit in New York City for objects of the time placed in a tube for people of the future," which almost falls into the realm of trivia. I would consider better integrating that information.

 Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Verified Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the creation of two separate sections, one for construction and one for background, and expanding more on the history and background of the capsules is also possible.

 Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Verified Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


1965 Time Capsule II Contents

[edit]

This section of the article only cites 1 source and, as informative as it may be, it does not verify the existence of guest book pins, or the 5 categories of contents listed. Additionally, each of the 5 categories for the 1939 capsule are broken down clearly and concisely, giving examples of contents that may fall into each category.

 Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Verified Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image Captioning

[edit]

Please make sure to review 6b above regarding image captions.

 Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Verified Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final Thoughts

[edit]

This is a really well-illustrated and interesting article, however, it is a bit of a ways away from meeting all GA criteria. My biggest concern overall is the lead section, and would advise it is copyedited carefully. This is a reader's first impression of the topic, and should reflect the fluency demonstrated later in the article. I hope this review has brought a few areas of improvement to light. Thank you to all contributors of this project for the time and effort you have put in.

All the very best, Babegriev (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Babegriev: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 9/16/20

[edit]

@Doug Coldwell: There is only one outstanding item that I'm tied up on from above. There is still no source for the alloy composition of Kromarc under Construction. I looked through the surrounding sources and did not see any evidence of the cited composition. After a quick google search for Kromarc patents, the sources varied on the exact composition (see here, here, and here). I'm curious as to the source of the cited composition, since it seems to have been from a topic-specific outlet. If I'm missing something right in front of me, I apologize in advance. If the source is unknown, then the content should be removed or amended. Thank you for the above edits, the lead section is remarkably improved.

 Working on Kromarc. --18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done @Babegriev: Additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Outcome

[edit]

Based on the assessed criteria, this article qualifies as a Good Article. Thank you, and congratulations to everyone who has contributed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westinghouse_Time_Capsules/GA1&oldid=1184535132"