Talk:William Parks (publisher)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days and stack it up for User:Doug Coldwell when he gets back. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2021 (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.	Made a number of prose edits, but issues remain - see 3a below. Pass on prose - I will make some tweaks before promoting.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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).	Good sources used, no issues noted. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Well-cited, no OR found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some of the information seems contradictory. When did he stop publishing for Maryland? We have two dates ("He did this until 1737" and "later ended his service for Maryland in 1733.")? Done = s/b 1733 When did he move to VA? It's said that there was no printing there until 1729, but he is later said to have published the laws of VA for the government in 1727. Did he do that from Maryland? Done = s/b 1729 A lot of the information in the Immigration to America section in general seems to repeat itself several times. It is confusing to read as you cannot be sure if you have already been told the information given (him being hired as printer for VA, him printing general laws, him opening a newspaper, etc). Please read through it and condense so that information is not unnecessarily repeated. Chronological order would be good - the chronology is very confused just now even after my slight edits. Done The paper mill section is better written and does not repeat as much. Done The information about 1745-49 references to his paper mill are repeated in his death section and it is unclear to me why. Is it that there were no longer any references after his death, so it may have closed? Please rephrase to clarify. Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See comments above in 3a.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Major work done in November, no edit wars. Pass.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I don't think the first image, of the sign, is necessary at all. It can be removed from the article. Done The caption on the image of the reconstructed office can be improved: "Reconstruction of Parks' print shop and post office at Colonial Williamsburg" Done
	7. Overall assessment.

Comment

@Ganesha811: As you may know, Doug is recovering from an accident and probably won't be around for some time longer. As one of the editors of the article, I will be happy to address and deal with any issues that may arise. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: thank you. Doug did let me know, and he didn't mind me "stacking" up a couple reviews for him when he returns. Of course, if you'd like to make fixes before then, that's very welcome too. Ganesha811 (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Issues brought up have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: yes, I will complete the second half of the review shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I've completed the review and some issues remain to be fixed. No rush, I don't know if you're fully back yet, just let me know when you've had a look at them. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Additional issues brought up have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA criteria. I will do the needful to pass it. Congratulations to you and all others who worked on it! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]