Talk:Jesse H. Jones/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this nomination, It may take several days. Please feel free to respond to my comments at any point — Maile (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "Jesse Holman Jones was born to William and Laura" I would suggest a paragraph break here, for clarity. Done

   "He allowed each son to three acres" Awkward wording. Suggest changing to "He allotted each son three acres" Done

   "he quit school and applied some of his experience working with tobacco" Applied to what? Did you possibly mean "applied some of his experience to working with tobacco"? Done

   "Jesse was in the job market, and William put him in charge of one of the tobacco factories" A bit awkward, since "in the job market" would sound like he was working for someone other than his family. Done

   "Jesse's family returned to Dallas". Was he with them? How about "Jesse and his family returned to Dallas." Done

   The first paragraph of Timber and lumber subsection is too wordy. The first two sentences are fine. From the first "However" much of this reads like, "he did this, then he did that, then this happened." Too much detail. Suggest finding a way to condense the content of that paragraph.

   I condensed the paragraph in part, though I retained much of the detail regarding his pay. It seems relevant to establish that his uncle did not treat him like family and Jones knew how to negotiate. I believe this first point is especially important since we see how M. T. came to trust him and left the care of his family in Jesse's hands. But this happened only after an interpersonal struggle. Please let me know if I still need to make changes.

   That's much better. If you would, please insert a source citation at the end of the block quote. Then we'll be done with that subsection. Done

   Construction and real estate subsection:

   "the Kirby Theater and Kirby Lumber Company Building went up on Main Street" - is "Building" part of the official name (which would then be "the Kirby Lumber Company Building"), or should it be a plural lowercase "buildings"?

   "Building" was capitalized by Fenberg. Done

   "two more floors to Fair Department Store" - should it be "the Fair Department Store"? Done

   "He sited a sixteen-story medical office" - did you mean "cited"?

   Per online dictionary, "to site" as a verb means to "fix or build (something) in a particular place." Done

   "a distinction it held until 1963" - not essential that you change this, but it does raise the question of which building finally superseded it in height.

   The Humble Building, now known as the ExxonMobil Building, though the company's HQ already moved to a suburban campus. Done

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Per MOS, the lead should be only four paragraphs. I suggest combining the first sentence with the second paragraph. Done

   Because the lead is a condensed version of the article, it does not generally need citations. Just make sure that whatever is in the lead, is found in the body of the article, then remove then existing citations in the lead. (NOTE: The citations I refer to are in the 3rd paragraph. They can be removed). Done

   There is one sentence in the lead that is not in the main body of the article, "Jones was in charge of spending US$50 billion, especially in financing railways and building munitions factories." This is cited to Koininen, but with no page number. I have not been able to identify the page number by a text search, nor do I have access to the book. It does not belong in the lead and I have not been able to confirm this statement through any other source. I am thinking I should just remove it. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, remove it. Figure it out another day, another time. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

   @Oldsanfelipe2: this is the last item left on this GA review. Per MOS:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The sentence in question is certainly significant information, and it's neither in the body of the article, nor sourced. So, it either needs to be removed, or sourced and also appear somewhere in the body. Let me know. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

   I see this has now been removed. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   • Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no copyvio issues.
   • Per WMFLabs Dup detector, no violations on the Fenberg source. Added a link to the full book in ProjectMuse, which can be deleted (or not) after this review is finished.
   • Too close paraphrasing on the #50 citation Daniels source:

   Article: "Roosevelt wanted social progress to continue and Jones's reputation was far too conservative for that role."

   Source: "Jones was far too conservative for the president, who, despite the war, wanted social progress to continue."

   • There should also be consistency in formatting of citations. The Daniels book format is not consistent with the other book formats. I've helped you out by adding the book to the Bibliography section. Please reformat the individual citation.

   • In addition to the close paraphrasing, it is irrelevant to the context. The paragraph starts with Wallace being dropped from the ticket in 1944. But the Daniels reference is talking about the Wallace nomination for VP in 1940. So the problem sentence does not belong there. I need to take a closer look at these sections. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

   • Sure. Let me know when you're ready for me to go back and check those sections. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

   • I moved the Daniels reference to the Secretary of Commerce section and wrote new copy. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
     Resolved

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Article is loaded down with too many images. The sections without images are fine that way.

   • You only need one of the images in Timber and Lumber, and the same in Construction and real estate. Done

   • Reconstruction and finance section - pick one image and remove the other two  Done
   • Not sure how the image of Jones as King Nottoc related to that section. You could conceivably put that image under Honors, with an explanation of the Notsouh Festival, Houston, Texas, and how he came to be crowned king.  Done
   • The image of the Jones quote under Publishing should be removed. To the reader, it's just a distant image of something hanging on a wall. It's not close enough, or clear enough, for the reader to get anything out of the image.  Done
   • Death and legacy section only needs one image  Done
   • Each image caption needs an ALT text:Wikipedia:MOSALT  Done

   • I acted on all of these suggestions with only one change. I moved the illustration of the Chronicle Building to the Publishing section. I can always remove it if this does not work well. In re ALT text: this is something completely new to me and it may take a lot of experience to develop good intuitions for what would be helpful. I'll keep working on it until I get it right. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

   • You missed Reconstruction Finance Corporation images, possibly because I mis-named the section above. Please leave just one image in that section. Nice job on expanding the Honors section. I'll continue my review of this sometime today. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)  Done
   • @Oldsanfelipe2: Two things:

   (1) It would be helpful for historical documentation on this nomination form, as well as for both of us to keep track as we go through this, if you would put a Check mark to the left of each item you believe you have resolved. If any Good Article goes up the line to FAC or DYK, those reviewers like to see what was accomplished here - easier visually with a checkmark.  Done

   (2) You didn't put an ALT text with the image in the infobox, but perhaps you were not aware that could be done in the infobox. Please see Template:Infobox officeholder. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Done

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congratulations! — Maile (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)