Talk:Alexander Bonner Latta/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article. I will begin a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Criteria
The six good article criteria:
- Well written
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout etc.
- Verifiable
- it contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- Neutral
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- Stable
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Review
The article is clearly written and accessible to a general audience. It is stable, 83.1% of authorship is one user, Doug Coldwell. It was ranked a C class article by the same user in 2017 but has been improved with substantial edits in December 2020.
- The article is illustrated by images that are marked as being licensed in the public domain. The images are relevant and help to bring the subject to life.
- The lead section is short and consists of two paragraphs each of one sentence. I recommend combining adding some more to interest the general reader in the topic. Compare, for example, with the article on Gerard J. Campbell which has 11 sentences in the lead.
- Dates are consistent with MOS:DATE.
- Link Cincinnati in the first paragraph and link Washington DC in the second paragraph.
- Is there any detail on the 30 locomotives built up to 1860?
Done - No, so took this out. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is some inconsistency in the references. Citations should follow WP:CITE and follow a single style. A way is to use one section References with two subsections at level 3 (===…===), one for the citations or notes and the other for the bibliography or sources. Every inline citation can then have a page number or numbers consistent with the first 12 citations. Others, like the Cincinnati Enquirer can be split between the two. Best practice is to include all the bibliographical information in the reference. For example, citations for books typically include:
- author(s) of chapter, if appropriate
- title of chapter, if appropriate
- name of author(s) or editor(s)
- title of book
- translator, if appropriate
- translated title, if appropriate
- volume when appropriate
- name of publisher
- place of publication
- date of publication of the edition
- chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate
- edition, if not the first edition
- ISBN or OCLC
- There is also more information at Help:Citation Style 1.
- For example, Citations 17 and 18 ("First Fire Engine Ever Built – The UNCLE JOE ROSS in action in Cincinnati / Cincinnati gave it to the World and other cities adopted it and History of the Steam fire Engine – first fire-engine ever built, the Uncle Joe Ross in action – Cincinnati gave it to the World and other cities adopted it are the same article. For simplification, they should be two inline references and one bibliographical reference.
- @Doug Coldwell: Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. simongraham (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: User talk:Simongraham - All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Doug Coldwell: Great work. That is a Good article. simongraham (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
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.