Talk:1836 U.S. Patent Office fire/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by The Most Comfortable Chair in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 06:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I will be done with the review in a day or two. Thanks. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
General
edit- There should be consistency in the number of patents approximated. Either use "9,957" or "10,000" throughout. I would suggest the former.
Lead
edit- Should mention the date in the lead, preferably in the very first line.
- "Local fire suppression efforts were incapable of preventing the damage from fire due to lack of fire personnel and proper equipment." → "Local fire suppression efforts were incapable of preventing the damage due to lack of fire personnel and proper equipment."
History
edit- The flow of this section will follow a smooth timeline if the first and second paragraph switched places.
- "several thousand related patent models were destroyed." → "7,000 related patent models were lost." — "7,000" instead of "several thousand" as that is reported below, and "lost" instead of "destroyed" to prevent copyright issues from the source material.
- ""Congress authorized the covering of the building with a slate roof and the purchase of a fire engine for its protection against fires."" — Since it isn't a quote per se, it is better to write it out in our own words.
- "Unfortunately" — should use a formal term instead. Perhaps "therefore" or "because of that" or "because of those changes".
- "In fact, a complete firehouse" — remove "in fact".
- "Repertory of Arts & Manufactures" → "Repertory of Arts & Manufactures".
- Done
Aftermath
edit- "no one was ever identified as having caused the fire." → "no one was identified as having caused the fire."
- "are listed today" — avoid using "today". Perhaps use "were listed later" or "as of YYYY".
- "It is difficult for modern researchers to find those patents." — mention why.
- "After the fire unique numbers were used by the Patent Office for each new patent." → "After the fire, unique numbers were issued by the Patent Office for each new patent."
- "Henry Leavitt Ellsworth became its first Commissioner." — Mention the year.
Bibliography
editEndnotes
edit- Reference 2 — "Publisher" should be "Laws.com".
- Reference 12 — needs "Publisher" and/or "Work".
- Reference 14 — "Title" should just be "Back To The Future". It needs "Publisher" and/or "Work". And its date is "July 2006", not "2020".
That should do it. Thank you for your work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The Most Comfortable Chair: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Final
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The article is well-written and thoroughly researched. Thank you for your hard work, Doug Coldwell. — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: