Wikipedia

Talk:Mason Mathews/GA1

< Talk:Mason Mathews
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Kingsif in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    There are no spelling or grammatical mistakes and I have edited the prose of the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    All of the information in this article is cited with no extreme claims lacking any references.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    The article covers the entirety of his life from his early life and political career to his activities during the Civil War and his death.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    There is no bias towards or against Mason Mathews.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    The last edits made before mine were made in late September 2019.
  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):  
    The images in this article are appropriate and are in the proper place.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    There is nothing preventing this article from receiving GA status. There are no grammatical, spelling, or prose issues; all claims in this article are backed up by references; and has broad coverage of his life.

Resuming review

edit

Newtack101, Jon698, while this appears to be a fine article, it is highly unusual that there are not any grammatical, spelling, or prose issues to be found, and generally not a good idea for a review to be posted and passed in the same moment. I read through the intro/lead section and found some issues immediately, including a dubious claim, so I'm reopening this review so that more time can be spent. What I've posted below is only based on a quick skim; there needs to be more done in depth. I've also made a few initial edits to the intro to fix some things proactively.

  • Per MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria (see 1b), an article of under 10,000 prose characters should have a lead of one or two paragraphs; articles of over 30,000 characters can go up to the maximum of four. This has four.
  • Number ranges should be indicated by en dashes ("–") rather than hyphens; the article uses either with no apparent pattern.
  • He served seven terms in the Virginia House of Delegates, representing Greenbrier County from 1859 to 1861 as a Whig. This is an extraordinary sentence: seven terms, yet served from 1859 to 1861 (two years, plus or minus). There's nothing about how long terms were (was it two years? one? four?), and there's nothing about "seven terms" in the body of the article, where it certainly should be included if mentioned here. (The intro/lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and not have any significant information that isn't in the body.)
  • Early life and business opening sentence: commas are expected in prose at the end of full mdy dates (so after "1803") and after city/state combos (so after "Lewisburg, Greenbrier County, Virginia").
  • Virginia House of Delegates opening sentence: After Abraham Lincoln's victory in the 1860 presidential election Southerns discussed the possibility of secession. What is "Southerns"? Do you mean "Southerners"? (Regardless, there should probably be a comma before it.)
  • The Personal life section needs to be better formatted: right now, there's nothing separating the childrens' dates and further explanation, which is ungrammatical.
    • I've changed the Personal Life section to Marriage and Children, and moved the bit about his house to Early Life and Business. Perhaps that could be changed to Private Life and Business? I'm open to recommendations if you have any Newtack101 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It is not unreasonable to ask for consistent dating formats throughout the references. Indeed, a bit more consistency in the section as a whole would be welcome.

I don't have time to do more at the moment, but there is almost certainly more to be found with a closer reading. I have no doubt that the article can attain GA status, it's just that isn't there at the moment, though it will be by the time this has run its full course. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments from Kingsif

edit
  • Refs satisfactory, one is flagged as bad but it's the official society just hosted at a blog site
  • Lead is a good length. The second paragraph could be expanded if wanted, though I feel the short list of relatives is unnecessary.
  • "U.S. State" doesn't need a wikilink
  • I would move his family ties closer to the start, above the wartime part (and maybe in the first sentence?)
  • Not sure whether it needs to say his seat was abolished
  • Lead has a good overview
  • In the infobox, his parents are listed in 'relations' - is there no father and mother parameter?
  • Also, there's a lot of children without articles, could the list be turned into 'Eight (including [children with article])'?
  • Is there also no family parameter?
  • At "one of hardship and self-denial;", the punctuation should be outside the quotation mark
  • In 'Local offices', the last half of the paragraph has three refs at the end - is it that some of these could be spread around the text to show which source supports each part (unless all refs cover all the text)
  • The elder Mathews is confusing as to whether it is Mason, the son mentioned, or the eldest son - I believe it's Mason, which can be stated instead
  • If Wise is going to be wikilinked in the image caption, Floyd should be, too
  • The part He had arranged protection from such an event from a "Yankee friend and protector," but the Union officer in charge of the raiding had not been made aware that Mathews had multiple properties to protect. isn't quite clear - from it, I understand that Mathews hired presumably a Union friend to make sure his properties were avoided, that some other Union soldier was in charge of raiding and allowed one on a property of Mathews and (the part that doesn't make sense) didn't know it was Mathews' or he would have avoided it, even though he couldn't have known that they shouldn't be attacking Mathews' properties and probably didn't care. Can this be clarified?
    • Yes, you understood it correctly. After playing around with the sentence a bit, I decided to just get rid of it. It's a minor detail that probably takes more effort to explain than it's worth. Newtack101 (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The sentence also needs a ref and take the comma out of the quotation
  • "enslaved person" probably doesn't need a wikilink
  • Sentence on death could mention his age?
  • If the Mathews family link can be moved up to his early life, the see also section can be removed.
    • done
  • Images sufficient, though the infobox one appears to be a photo of a photo (glare, at an angle); is it possible that there's a scan out there that would look a bit better?
  • The coverage seems fine. It goes into a good amount of detail, that is all relevant. It would be interesting to know if he developed the county, was a philanthropist, or the like - the article mentions he had lots of properties and was very well respected there. If there's nothing on that, the article should be good.
Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mason_Mathews/GA1&oldid=949468260"