Talk:Ice trade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• will review - it may take me a little while. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks - much appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

initial review

Storage

• "Science of. Need to avoid water collecting, as water melted ice faster than warm air." - typo or something?
• "By 1840s, warehouses by the Pond up to 36,000 square feet" , don't know what this means
• "Ice houses called depots were also built in the major ice consuming cities " - does this mean that they were only called depots in cities?
• "Household refrigerators being manufactured in the 1840s on the east coast, most notably by Darius Eddy of Massachusetts and Winship of Boston; " - not a complete sentence
• "Differences in 19th century American and European attitudes to adding ice directly to drinks;" - not a complete sentence

Commercial applications

• "It was quickly found that placing meat directly on top of blocks of ice in cars caused it to go off;" - go bad? fall off?
• Should you credit the illustration to Harper's Weekly, 30 August 1884; Author F. Ray? I know you don't have to but it might be a nice touch.

• All in all, I think this is a wonderful article. Very well written. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Should be all fixed now - verbs are in short supply in the UK at the moment, due to the recession, so they had to be used sparingly in the later parts of the article! :)
• Many indeed thanks for the review, it was much appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Should I send you some verbs by internet express? Don't want you to suffer! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Great article. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)