Talk:Arthur O. Austin/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 14:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Starting review. This is my first ever GAN review, so apologies if I'm a bit slow or make any mistakes with procedure. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

As an initial read, article seems to be in good condition. I’ve already made a couple of minor edits myself, though not to the prose.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   All fine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References seem reliable and there are sufficient inline citations. I've spot-checked various facts quotes, and all okay, except couldn't see a mention of Anna–Dean Farm in [1]. Also in "Personal life", the sentence “Austin was born on December 28, 1879, in Stockton, California, to Oswin and Mary Hamman Austin” seems to be mostly taken from [2], so may benefit rewording it a bit. The article says "As of 2022 it is once again an independent company known as Austin Insulators Inc.", but is this confirmed? As https://www.austin-insulators.com/radio/history.html appears to have not bee updated since 2002, and may have since closed/been bought out/etc.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems fine.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems fine.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All fine.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All fine. Images all have captions, are relavent, and are public domain or CC BY 2.0.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Additional optional comments:

• In the “High-voltage laboratory” section: Should “iron core” be hyphenated?
• Is it clear enough what “over-exciting” means?

Discussion

RoySmith, please see above my initial set of feedback. It's only really criteria 2 to respond to. Good work overall. I do want to also go through it again myself another day before completing the review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Anna-Dean Farm, it's on page 3, "In 1926, Austin purchased several hundred acres of land in then Coventry Township, a portion of the expansive Anna Dean Farm established by Barberton town founder Ohio C. Barber." There's also a photo caption, "A. O. Austin’s outdoor laboratory at the Anna Dean Farm in Barberton."

As for “Austin was born on December 28, 1879, in Stockton, California, to Oswin and Mary Hamman Austin”, this seems like one of those things that there's just not many ways to say without being awkward. "On December 29, 1879, Mary Hamman Austin gave her husband, Oswin, a baby son. The blessed event occurred in Stockton, California". Nahhhh.

Regarding if Austin Insulators Inc is still in business, Bloomberg has a current entry for them. And MacRAE's Bluebook (who I'll admit I've never heard of, but appears to be a directory of industrial supply companies) has what appears to be a current entry for them. And just for fun, Google Maps shows them right next door to a Tim Hortons :-) Granted, none of those are WP:RS, but I don't see any reason to think they're not still around just because their low-budget website hasn't been updated in a bunch of years.

Hyphenating iron core? No clue, I've asked at WT:GOCE.

Over excitation: I've added a link that I hope will explain the term. RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith Regarding the farm, it seems what's currently ref 1 does indeed say that, but ref 2 at the end of that sentance in the article doesn't. So I've just taken the liberty of fixing that myself. I agree with you regarding the other points, and looking over things again I don't have anything further to add, so I feel this is a pass. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2023 (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.