Talk:Charles R. Forbes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ...comments? ~BFizz 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I plan to gradually review this article, devoting around 20 minutes a day until I am thoroughly satisfied with the review. I will post thoughts and portions of my review incrementally every few days. I expect this will take somewhere between 2 to 4 weeks, during which time I encourage the continued improvement of the article (but no super-big changes, please). ...comments? ~BFizz 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

First thoughts

I will obviously conduct a much more thorough review over time, but after my first read I have the following thoughts regarding the GA criteria.

1. Well-written - Mostly yes. There are a few instances where the possessive is intended, but no apostrophe is used. According to MOS:POSS, I beleive Forbes' is the correct way to indicate the possessive in this case. One other issue I have with the writing style is that nearly every sentence begins with "Forbes". Some variety would be nice. The first intro paragraph can use "he" instead of "Forbes" for a couple more sentences than it currently does.
2. Factually accurate and reliable - looks pretty good. I'll have to dig into the sources to make sure they cover the assertions made.
3. Broad in its coverage - also looks pretty good. Again, I'll have to check sources to see if they reveal any holes in this article.
4. Neutral - pretty much. There were a couple sentences that seemed biased; I'll definitely look into this.
5. Stable - definitely. Looks like there is one primary editor recently, with very few changes by other editors. Correct me if I'm wrong.
6. Illustrated - Looks good on the surface. I'll dig through the alt text and copyright stuff later to make sure it's up to snuff.

Overall, things are looking good for this article so far. Remember, this is not my complete review, but is simply a quick check for any glaring problems (there were none). More in-depth review to come soon! Feel free to comment, and especially feel free to let me know if you've addressed any issues that I bring up. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited this article and am willing to make any neccessary changes. I used newspaper sources since there are not any Charles R. Forbes biographers. He was also pretty much forgotten after his jail term ended. His life is interesting in that he was a Scottish immigrant rising to the appointment of the first Veterans Bureau director. He went from the height of being President Harding's favorite to relative obscurity, due primarily to his desire for wealth by illicit transactions, drinking, and womanizing. One author called Forbes both a hero and a crook. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the Wikipedia policy pages for each of these topics, which is why my review will take a long time. It's my first review so I want to solidify the policies and guidelines in my mind. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct

Yep.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for the following

lead sections

Looks good.

•  Done I'd suggest removing the phrase "full of controversy" from the lead second paragraph, and simply state that his tenure was characterized by scandal etc.

layout

Mostly good. A few non-mandatory suggestions:

•  Done Consider re-arranging Seattle and Tacoma images to be at the beginning of their relevant sections (respectively "Pacific Northwest and Hawaii" and "Campaigned for Harding", if I'm not mistaken)
•  DoneThere's no guideline that I can find for this, but I'd suggest re-wording the section titles. Some use a past tense or past-participle form, like "Resigned office". For consistency, it would be better to choose a noun (or nouns) for each section. For example, you could change "Resigned office" to "Resignation", "Released from prison" to "Release from prison", and likewise address "campaigned", "neglected", "appointed", etc.

words to watch

Probably OK

•  Fixed - great - "...had a great influence over Harding..."
• (this fix seems like a step backwards) accused - "Forbes...was accused of selling..."
•  Fixed - deny - "Forbes continued to deny any involvement in illegal activities."

Maybe need fixing

• notable - "He served notably overseas in France..." - clarify wording
• reveal - "The Senate investigation revealed Forbes had..."
• claim - a few instances; see WP:CLAIM for guidance
  •  Fixed "Forbes claimed the $5,000 payment was a loan."
  •  Fixed "...Eugene Mecham, claimed that Forbes had overly neglected their home..."
  •  Fixed "[Forbes] claimed after his release that he would..."
• Disregard - resting place - This is in the template used, which is odd, since WP:EUPHEMISM discourages its use.

Probably need fixing

•  Fixed - remarkable - "This was a remarkable amount..." - editorialization, but not entirely bad
•  Fixed - research has shown - "it was estimated that he embezzled $225 million..." - it's best to make explicit in the prose who made this estimation
• alleged - policy states "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." (emphasis mine)
  • "Forbes and his contractor cronies allegedly indulged in parties and drinking." -  Fixed - also: "cronies" feels like POV
  •  Fixed - "Allegedly, Forbes had various affairs..."
  •  Fixed - "Forbes assistant in Washington D.C., Charles F. Cramer, who was allegedly also involved with Veteran Bureau scandals, committed suicide in 1923." - also: this seems to suggest that he committed suicide because of his involvement. If so, then state explicitly. If not, then consider removing this sentence.
  •  Fixed - "[image caption] Drake Hotel in Chicago where Forbes allegedly played craps and took a $5,000 bribe." - isn't this considered a fact, and not just 'alleged'?

fiction

This article does not cover a fictional topic. (guideline not applicable)

list incorporation

No lists incorporated. Looks good.

Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) references section

it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

The layout for "Notes" and "Works Cited" is good. The use of citation templates in these sections also looks good. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(b) in-line citations

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Overall, I am satisfied that the sources do support the material. I've spot checked several Privileged Character references, and a few others. I have one suggestion:

• In the second paragraph of the "Veterans' Bureau tenure" section, there are several "according to ___" statements. Then at the end of the paragraph are all of the references lumped together. For the convenience of the reader, it would be better to put each reference right after the sentence to which it applies. This is convenient in general, but especially useful to verify that the "according to ___" statements are legitimate.
• Related cases where this is important are most quoted phrases. A good example is "dashing playboy". A few phrases that should have the reference directly after:
  • known as "Joy-Rides"
  • reasons that Congress called "split hairs"
  • "as a dog would a rat"

This does not apply to the New York World article section, where it is obvious which source is referred to. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research

I am satisfied that this article is solidly based on statements from reliable sources. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

This is mostly good. There is one thing I noticed that I think should be in the article:

• Date/location of marriage, and date/location of the birth of children, and maybe a small bit of information about the background/notability of his (later ex-)wife and child(ren). Currently, there is only the sentence: He got married in Seattle to his wife Katherine and started a family having one daughter, Marcia - the grammar here is also a little clumsy. Expand this information a tiny bit. What was Katherine's maiden name? Where was she from? How did they meet? Did they have a long courtship? Did they have any other children? Did they deliberately only have one child? Please answer most of these questions, but keep it very brief. Or if information isn't available, that's fine; don't include it.

...comments? ~BFizz 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(b) summary style

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Yep. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias

As far as I can tell, the information is presented in a very neutral way. Well done. CMguy's responsiveness to my previous assessment of words to avoid has removed the small points of concern that arose in my preliminary review.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Yep. ...comments? ~BFizz

Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) copyright

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

• File:Cforbes.jpg - good.
• File:Pioneer_square.jpg - good.
• File:Drake_Hotel_Chicago_postcard_1920.jpg - good.
• File:Leavenworth-prison.jpg - good.

No problems here. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(b) captions and relevance

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

All look great.

•  Done The only thing I would consider changing is the "credits" on the Pioneer Square and Drake Hotel captions. According to WP:CREDITS, we generally don't credit the photographer/painter in an image's caption; however, the date information is useful to put the pictures in context. No big deal either way. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion of review

✓ Pass

Although I have left a few very recent suggestions which have not yet been implemented, I consider them to be minor, and have no hesitation in granting Good Article status whether or not they are addressed.

A few final suggestions for further improvement of this Good Article:

• Try using WP:NAMEDREFS for when the same reference (same publication, same page) is used in different places.
• Seek online copies of the old publications. Some may be in the public domain; seek help at WikiSource if they are not already freely available online.
• The lede's final sentence feels like 2 sentences rammed into one. Released 8 months later he died in 1952. Try rewording that for clarity.

...comments? ~BFizz 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)