Talk:Charles A. Cheever

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles A. Cheever/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Akrasia25 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Starting this review.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look good for this article. It has failed a review before and I do not see any changes that have been made since that review.

Talk:Charles_A._Cheever/GA1

• FYI, I have done dozens of edit improvements since the last review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, the following have not been done. Quoting parts from the last review.

• The article is almost wholly based on newspaper clippings that are very dated (over 100 years old). Whilst WP:AGEMATTERS applies less to historical articles, it still is relevant and is even magnified considering the scale that they are used in this article. Therefore, their reliability is questionable.

•  Done Out of the 28 references, there are 8 of them that are newspaper clips from Historical Newspapers. From the 160 Good Articles I have done and the 500 Did You Know articles I have done, it so happens that most use these type of historical newspaper references. The top editors in these arenas approve these type of references and use themselves. The free subscription (normally $220 per year) I got to this service came from the Wikipedia Library (years ago) for the purpose to use as references for articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Saying that he was "known for..." based on these old newspapers clippings doesn't mean these claims can be made in the modern era. There's a difference between recognition in that era and notability today.

•  Done ditto --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Saying that "Cheever became a successful businessman and entrepreneur" based on a small column in the NYT and a newspaper clipping of 'The Johnsbury Caledonian' a local newspaper from a small town in Vermont, is certainly a stretch and making these claims without reliable, definitive sources isn't really acceptable.

•  Done ditto --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• A lot of these newspapers appear too local/too small to demonstrate good reliability. For example, St. Joseph Weekly Gazette and Bell Telephone News.

•  Done ditto --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• There's only 300 words on his life, and about 300+ on his firm. To reduce this difference would take quite a bit of work and therefore can't be considered "broad in its coverage".

•  Done FYI, I have done dozens of edit improvements to the article since the previous review GA1.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• There's an instance where the content doesn't meet the source. You say he weighed only 70 pounds (32 kg) as an adult, but the source mentions nothing of his weight.

•  Done The source says, Mr Cheever who was born in Boston in 1852 was a helpless cripple from an early age caused by a fall from the arms of a nurse and at no time did he weigh more than 70 pounds.

• I would have to imagine that there are better secondary sources to find than these. --Akrasia25 (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done The usual review I get for GANs is that typical of the notifications of dozens of reviews on my User Talk page, which have all passed and promoted to Good Article. Could I get a review along these lines, instead of a rehash of the previous review. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• FYI, during last years GAN drives which was done in two months that each had 31 days, I got promoted 62 of my GAN articles to Good Article = average of 1 Good Article per day for the 62 days, that involved dozens of different reviewers.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I'll start working on it as soon as I can.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Akrasia25: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

New review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, most authorship is one user, Doug Coldwell. Doug Coldwell has many GAs to his name. It is currently ranked a start class article The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All inline citations are from reliable sources;

It contained no original research;

I went through 5 of the references and found that they matched. Doug goes far in his research even clipping old pieces like this one https://www.newspapers.com/clip/71303291/asheville-citizen-times/

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic;

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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

Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. Looks good to pass.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)