Talk:Foster–Payne House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well-written:

With a few minor grammatical corrections made here and there in the text, and the issues raised below having been satisfactorily addressed, the article now complies with MOS policies for structure, layout, prose and grammar. Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article contains several sources of a reputable nature in its bibliography, and makes proper use of them throughout the article. Everything checks out as verifiable, as far as I can see. Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article appears to cover all encyclopedically relevant aspects of the topic for which reliable information was readily available. None of the information strikes me as trivial, either. Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

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

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

The article discusses its topic in a neutral, unbiased tone. Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Since its creation, the article has not been subjected to any edit warring or disputes. Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Both images used in the article are validly licensed, and serve useful purposes. Fair use is not an issue, as both images are derived from the Wikimedia Commons. Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

• "In 1873, he formed a partnership with Walter E. White and Samuel H. Baily. The White, Foster & Company would last until White retired in 1878 and it became known as Foster & Bailey... Foster would continue to be successful in his jewelry manufacturing business..." I'm not certain if it is all one business being described in this paragraph, but if it is, then shouldn't the type of business be described at the start, i.e., "In 1873, he formed a jewelry-manufacturing partnership with..."? Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will - I believe I fixed it. Yes, the three formed the business and when White left, the name of the film was re-stylized (re-named) to have just Foster and Baily because White was not longer a partner. Similar to Johnson & Dwight being renamed Johnson & Doyle once Dwight is replaced by Doyle, the name of the partnership reflects the partners. So I tightened the prose to reflect the partnership aspect and address the prose issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, very much; all systems are go! Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

After a thorough review of this article, a comparison against the criteria, and a few minor fixes such as those addressed in the above comments, the article checks out for GA status. Congratulations! Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)