Talk:David Jewett Waller Sr./Archive 1

Archive 1

Assessment

The article has good cites, good timeline, and establishes both notability and legacy. There are a couple of tweaks - the narrative is not always clear, for example Waller was a Republican candidate for the United States Congress in 1876 as a candidate for the 11th congressional district. Perhaps: In 1876, Waller ran as a Republican candidate for US Congress. Likewise, after he died something stopped, not said what. And there was a line about being a prankster in school that was confusing. With work (also: make sure the cites are not directly quoted without page numbers and quote marks), this could definitely be a Good (or Featured) article. EBY (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Jewett Waller, Sr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why I fail this GA review

I must fail this GA review because of egregious violations of Criteria 1a. The prose unfortunately reads in many places as if it were culled directly from the sources quoted--it verges toward copyvio by being too close a paraphrase. Comparision between the source text and the article content is too frequently similar. I will not continue with an analysis of the article the other criteria because of how much work is necessary to remedy the criteria 1a concerns. However, I do advise the article's contributors to learn how to properly format citations using one of the styles accepted by the MOS. These references are incomplete, and would cause the failure of the article on criteria 2 grounds.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Jewett Waller, Sr./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll start reviewing this one today. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Image

• I'm a little uneasy about the image tag. I understand what you're saying -- the picture was taken a long time ago. But the rule isn't that the picture must have existed before 1923, but that it must have been published before 1923. It's worth looking into it, if you can, or finding a pic with better provenance.

• I'm not claiming it was published before 1923. Criterion 2 of PD-US says "Works first published in 2003 or later by authors who died before 1944." This image was published in 2011 and I'm saying the author simply can't have been alive in 1944 if they took the picture in 1833 - even if whoever took the picture was only 10 at the time they still would've had to live to be 120 for the image to be invalid. --Jakob (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• The sentences here are kind of choppy. Try getting them to flow together to tell a brief story of the subject's life.

Early life and education

• "When Waller was eight years old, his father moved to Oquago, New York.[2] When he was young, Waller lived with his aunts." Again, this is kind of choppy. It also feels like we're missing something. Did his mother also move to Oquago? Why did his father move there? Did he leave all the children behind, and is this why Waller lived with his aunts? Do we know the aunts' names? And where did they live?

•  Doing...

• "He attended the Wilkes-Barre Academy. He had a "prickly" personality according to historian William M. Ballie. However, Waller received good grades in school." These feel like the could be combined. How about: "Waller attended the Wilkes-Barre Academy and received good grades, despite what historian William M. Ballie called a "prickly" personality." Also, when did he attend W-B academy?

•  Doing...

• When did he start at Princeton Theological Seminary and how long did he spend there? What degree was he awarded, if any? Is the John Breckenridge you mention related to any of the other men by that name?

• All have been added in. Breckinridge is not one of the people on the page you linked to. In the 1830s (the time period when Waller got into a dispute with John Breckinridge), one of the people in the linked dab page was dead, three hadn't been born yet, and one was a child.

Service to the church

• The first sentence seems like it belongs in the previous section.

• Fixed, but I could really see it being in either section.

• "In 1837 the Presbytery of New Castle gave licensure to Waller." It would seem more natural to say "...the Presbytery of New Castle licensed Waller", unless there's some term of art at work here that I'm not aware of. Also, this would be a good place to explain when he became a Presbyterian. From birth? Were his parents Presbyterian? You write that he was descended from Puritans, but it's unclear where in the family line the conversion occurs.

• First thing fixed. Will look into the second one when I have time.

• "...Waller instead began preaching in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania" Where? At any particular church?
• "On May 1, 1839 he was ordained in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania." How is this different from licensure? I don't know the difference, and the average reader likely will not, either.

• Removed the part about lisencure.

• "In 1840 Waller stopped preaching at Briar Creek and Berwick." Why?

• Answered in the article.

• "His ministry was started on a church on Third Street in Bloomsburg." This is difficult to understand. Is this where he was ordained in 1839? If so, why not mention it there instead of throwing it in later in the paragraph?

• Removed, it seems that I already mentioned it near the top of the paragraph.

• "Waller was chosen to be a member of the Board of Foreign Missions in 1865." Who chose him?

•  Partly done It's an elected position. I've changed the text to reflect that.

• "In 1839 he revived the Hidlay Church and a church at Berwick." Where was the Hidlay Church? Does the church in Berwick have a name?
• "Waller and three other people also attempted to organize a church it Catawissa but this attempt was unsuccessful." might read better as "Waller and three others also attempted unsuccessfully to organize a church it Catawissa."

• Fixed.

I'll stop here for now to give you a chance to resolve these. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Responded to a few. --Jakob (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I'll continue with the review:

• @Coemgenus: All fixed except for the following: I don't know the tallies for the 1876 election (and can't find them). --Jakob (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Land purchase and sale

• "Waller owned 20 percent (900 acres) of the land in Bloomsburg at some time" A rough date would be better than "some time", even if an exact date isn't available.
• "... a place to house poor people." Was it a poorhouse? If so, that would make for better link than poverty.
• Do we know how he came to acquire all this land in the first place?

Other work

• Is there somewhere else that first sentence can go? One-sentence paragraphs aren't good.
• What were the vote tallies in the 1876 election? Was it close?
  • Here you go: [1] --Coemgenus (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • @Coemgenus: Thanks, I've added it in. --Jakob (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

• "The historian J.H. Battle made note of Waller's hospitality." Does this have a citation? Also, this and the sentence after it should probably precede the one about his death.
• I think you can afford to lose the "as of 2011" clauses. They don't add anything, and they just make the article look out of date. If the information changes, we can change the article.

Citations

• footnote 6 just keeps redirecting me to ads.

General prose issues

• Some of the short sentences on the same topic could be combined. I've done a few myself.
• You don't have to say "Waller" as much as you do. "He" is good where it won't cause any ambiguity.
• When you say, "In 18XX Waller sold..." there should be a comma after the year.

• @Coemgenus: Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I'll give it one last look before passing. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good. Passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The photo

If the photo shows him at age 18, it would have been taken in about 1833. But the first vague, out-of-focus photo of a person was not taken until 1838. The dress and photo style are more characteristic of the 1860s. This is a significant inconsistency. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this possibly David Jewett Waller, Jr. instead, who would have been 18 in the early 1860s, Jakec? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I thought of that, but it's rather unlikely (still can't be ruled out, though). In the book, it's next to a picture of his wife, Julia Ellmaker, supposedly at the age of 20, which would date that photo to 1837. Seems unlikely that both of those photos would be of the wrong person, so I'm guessing it's them at a later age, perhaps in their 40s. David also looks a lot older than 18 in the picture, which would support that. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)