Talk:Louis Howe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA, and should have my full review up by the end of the day. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Early life, "Fearing to expose Howe to public school, his parents instead enrolled him in an all-girls seminary." They enrolled him at a girls school? How did that work?

   • Even the one or two biographies dedicated to Howe didn't go into detail, but I assume they got a special exemption from the school. It really is bizarre. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Journalism, "for a Saratoga club." What kind of club? Night club, reading club, country club?

   • Clarified. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Journalism, "However, though Osborne intended to run for governor himself..." This sentence as a whole is quite convoluted. Rearranging or perhaps splitting into two would be good.

   • Untangled. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Assistant, "block Tammany Hall nominee William F. Sheehan to the US Senate." Should this be from the US Senate?

   • Agreed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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):

   • File:LouisHowe.jpg should have a US Government/NARA tag, rather than an author life + 70 tag, I think.
   • File:Thomas Mott Osborne3b42273r.jpg has an pre-1923 publication tag, but no proof that it was published before 1923. The description says it was uploaded from the LoC American Memory Collection, but I can't find it in their online database, and the the LOC says that it doesn't always hold copyright for the images in their collections.
   • File:Roosevelt20.jpg - Same as above, LoC doesn't automatically hold copyright, and no proof of pre-1923 publication. This was probably created by a gov't employee in the scope of their duties, making it PD, but I can't find anything on the source page that specifies this.

   • I'm sorry to say I don't really know enough copyright law/Wikicommons policy to fix these issues (I'm not the original uploader of any of these images, but just saw them marked as public domain at Commons and added them). The NARA tag appears to require an identifier number and an additional tag, and since the source link is broken, I'm not sure how to go ahout that. I'm glad to just delete all three images from the article if that's the easiest solution. Alternatively, we could mark the images for deletion at Commons, noting these concerns, and see if another editor can come forward with the relevant information. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

   • My plan of action would probably be to tag them for deletion on Commons, and see what happens. I would likely remove/replace them from the article on at least a temporary basis, until the images are either deleted or the copyright questions worked out. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Removed for now. I'll tag them at Commons later this morning. I added a new FDR image that appears to have a more complete copyright history, and was previously vetted at DYK. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall quite nice, as usual. Placing the article on hold until the image and minor prose issues are ironed out. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks, and many thanks for the suggestions, too. Let me know if my edits have addressed those issues and if you see anything else. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

   OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, and I hope the licensing is able to be clarified on those images. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

   Hurray! Thanks again for donating your time for a review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)