Talk:Alexander Bullock

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander Bullock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 07:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I will be taking a look at completing the review for this article, expect a full review to be up either today or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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.	Some minor issues; Lede No prose issues in this section. Early years "who was governor that year" <- governor of which State? Massachusetts? Fixed. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Massachusetts legislature No prose issues in this section. Worcester politics "in 1853, but lost", perhaps -> which he lost. That would be equally awkward; I have altered it... Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "During his one-year term he donated his $1,000 salary for the awarding of medals to recognized students in the city's schools." -> During his one-year term he donated his $1,000 salary to the awarding of medals to recognized students in the city's schools. Fixed. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "reelection" -> re-election? seems odd that this "reelection" isn't incorrect. (This occurs a couple times, not sure that it is actually issue, feel free to strike if you think its a non-issue). Style guides are divided on the hyphenation of this (and other "re-" words), often describing it as a preference. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Civil War No prose issues in this section. Governor of Massachusetts "Bullock defeated Civil War General Darius Couch", defeated how? I assume you mean defeated in the election in which case -> Bullock was elected over Civil War General Darius Couch... Clarified. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "paying down war-related debts" -> minimizing war-related debts, or, reducing, by payment, war-related debts. Fixed. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "than an other" -> than any other Fixed. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Later years No prose issues in this section. The prose issues have been rectified.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is neatly laid out, without any issues regarding the lead, the use of words, or the general layout of the section. As a work of non-fiction and without lists incorporated these parts of the MOS do not need addressing.
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.	All of the sources of information are neatly laid out within two columns for the citations and with all of the sources properly laid out in the references section as well.
	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).	Some of the in-line citations come from reliable secondary sources with quite a few primary sources (depending on interpretation Crane and Nutt may not be PS) used for in-line citations; 1 and 2 (Crane), 4, 10-13 and 29 (Rice), 3, 5, 9, and 15-17 (Devens), and 6 and 28 (Nutt). Not ideal, but, not problematic either. That said, one issue has cropped up; *"During his one-year term he donated his $1,000 salary for the awarding of medals to recognized students in the city's schools." The above comes from a primary source, it seems like a bit of a puff piece to make Bullock appear somewhat great. Any chance this can be verified against a reliable secondary source. I would not have thought of Rice as a primary source, but I suppose it is possible the author had personal knowledge of aspects of Bullock's life (in contrast to Devens, which is a real memorial). The only sources I've been able to locate mentioning it date to a similar timeframe, which you would probably consider equally primary. Magic♪piano 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) I tend to deal with ancient history, works published centuries after the fact are often considered primary. I have struck my comment above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I had difficult accessing source, however, of the couple that I could access I had no problem citing the article to the supposed reference material. While, I don't have an issue with WP:OR, I want to add one thing to the article for clarity. I assume good faith on the part of the sources I can access and have no reason to think this was willfully missed. The added qualification is satisfactory. "although such legislation would not be enacted in the state until 1874, when a ten-hour workday was mandated." While this is true, it wasn't until 1879 when the legislation was amended that a ten-hour workday could be mandated and enforced. Per Blewett pg. 133-134. I've added a qualification to this. (I'd rather not dwell on the fine point about passage vs. enforcement, because it is outside Bullock's tenure.) Magic♪piano 15:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector rates it unlikely that a copyright violation has occurred with meager confidence of 8.5%. I will be taking a look at a couple of the sources to confirm that this is indeed the case. Having taken a look at Blewett, James and Montgomery I am confident that there are indeed no copyvio's in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I struggled to access the sources to confirm this portion, so, part of this is on the assumption of good faith that the article has indeed covered the main aspects of the topic. The article is somewhat short, but, I cannot identify any shortcomings within the article that would identify issues with coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays consistently on topic without deviating much more than to add elaboration to certain parts. No issues with the article's focus.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article has no issues with neutrality of sources or of the editor.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable, there are no on-going edit-wards and no outstanding content disputes on the talk page.
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.	An article with no image licensing issues, excellent start.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:AlexanderBullock.jpeg needs a suitable caption to go along with it. Has been rectified.
	7. Overall assessment.	All of my concerns have been addressed, the article is well written, it uses plenty of verifiable and reliable sources to back its claims, there are no issues with prose or compliance with MOS and no copyvio or licensing issues either. Pass.

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Magicpiano, I have completed my initial review of the article. From what I have observed, this is a very good article with only minor prose issues. It was an interesting read, especially given lawyers and the U.S. Government are well outside of the topic of my interests. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance, otherwise, notify me when you have dealt with the above minor issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think all of the issues have been addressed. Thank you for taking time to review my articles. Magic♪piano 15:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work Magicpiano, you have written a fine article about a topic that so few are going to think to read. I for one am glad to have come across this page and had the chance to review it. My knowledge of U.S. History is greatly limited at least I can add that I have learned something about the Governors of Massachusetts (two of them). Excellent work, I hope to see and review more of yours :) Mr rnddude (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)