Talk:Essex Reef Light/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 10:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Easy to follow	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Follows MoS	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Referenced.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Yes. AGF on few offline sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Covers major aspects for a light house.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Yes, it is focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
'There can't be many viewpoints on a light house I guess, and I feel content is without bias.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
No edits in past five months.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes, the image is on Wikimedia Commons and tagged with copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Yes, image is relevant to the topic, and has suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Congrats, it qualifies for a GA!

Discussion

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am placing this article on GAHold with this feedback for now, once these are addressed I will continue:

• From lead, Change this: Two of the keepers, Gilbert B. Hayden and Bernie Hayden, relation unknown, were keepers of the light, but their service years are unknown. To: Two of the keepers, Gilbert B. Hayden and Bernie Hayden, were keepers of the light. We can present what we know and leave the unknows to be added later with citation.

The relationship would be assumed, so I disagree at this point. It was typical that the family, father and son or father and daughter would operate the light. As the relationship is unknown at this time, I insist it remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Same for "The exact cost of the structure is unknown." under section Construction.

This is typically known, but I have not found information about this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you make corresponding changes in Keepers section.
• Remove this: "A December 1889 report states that" -- it is not required.

Done. Since I could not find a note about its alteration.

 Resolved --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Remove this: "The oil for the light was stored in boxes in the lower portion of the lantern." -- too much detail that is of little value.

Is it harmful? I think it is a useful tidbit because most light houses had their own oil storerooms outside or nearby and not contained within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you explain the meaning and background of: "The demolition of the old light is unknown."

Tweaked. There is no date on record of when the light was demolished. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Remove "an article in The Day noted that" -- it is not required.

Kept the paper reference, but dropped "an article" aspect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you explain the intent of "the light was noted as buoys in the..."

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why is "few weeks vacation" in quotes?

Quoted from source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why is "ruled against" in quotes?

Fixed this sentence.

 Resolved --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think "During Bernie Hayden's service, it..." is not required/notable. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the humorous aspect from the townspeople, the reports that the light "floated away" were unfounded, but it was an aspect of local legend and prevalent enough that even the paper (far from the site) would comment on it. I don't think it does any harm and adds some character since this is a story more than 20 years after the fact! It is part local lore and something which persisted after generations and even decades after its replacement. With that spin on things, it is unusual enough for DYK even. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: are you working on the article? It has been seven days since last activity and if there is no change from you/other editors I will have to discontinue the review. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Fixes done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: thank you. I will continue the review. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: is the article good? It has been a week without further issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: will catchup in a day or two! --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, references are good. Marked GA pass. Congrats! --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)