Talk:Neal Dow/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 07:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I will be taking on the review of this article for GA class. Expect a full review to be up either today or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The issues noted below have been rectified, and quickly too I might add. Multiple minor issues; "Dow" and "Neal Dow", the usage should be consistent throughout the article, I recommend Neal Dow for the first sentence of the lede and infobox and Dow throughout the rest of the lede and article. OK, fixed. "Hate-Evil Hall" <- is this actually the name? or is this a bit of vandalism that somebody's enacted. That's his name! That sir, is one of the gems of the Wikipedia site. Mr. Hate-Evil Hall, whomever you are, I applaud you for sticking by that name. Truly a remarkable feat. "consumed more than three times more alcohol than today." sounds odd -> consumed more that three times the alcohol than today. I changed it to "the average American consumed more than three times the alcohol of his modern-day counterpart" "In 1832 presidential election," -> In the 1832 presidential election. Fixed "Dow worked fervently on behalf for Whig candidates" -> Dow worked fervently on behalf of Whig candidates Fixed "Portland to require licenses of liquor dealers" -> licenses for liquor dealers Changed it "The did so, and Dow..." -> They did so, and Dow... Fixed "uses (the only uses permitted,)" -> use (the only uses permitted), Fixed "Republicans lost the governorship that fall, and in 1856 the Democrats combined with the remaining Whigs in the state legislature in repealing the Maine Law entirely." What is being said in this sentence, that the Democrats and remaining Whigs combined to repeal the Maine Law entirely. If so, that reads so weirdly. Perhaps in repealing -> to repeal. Changed it. "He also became entangled in scandal when the State Treasurer, Benjamin D. Peck, who had lent out state funds to private citizens (including Dow) in contravention of state law." Needs a re-phrase; He also became entangled in scandal when the State Treasurer, Benjamin D. Peck, lent out state funds to private citizens (including Dow) contravening state law. Yes, that's better. Fixed. "cooled on him in public." <- cooled? Changed it to "became less openly supportive of him" "when he learned his unite would" -> unit Fixed "did not take part in the attack," -> partake, perhaps? I think "take part" is more accurate than "partake" here. Maybe "join" would be better than both? Changed to that. "A day earlier." <- that, is not a sentence, I think you want a comma and not a period. If so "A day earlier. Congress approved" -> A day earlier, Congress had approved. Past tense. Yes, that's what was meant. Fixed. "which Dow attributed to revenge for" -> an action which Dow attributed to being revenge for Changed to "which Dow believed was done in revenge for" "Banks determined to break the siege" -> was determined to Fixed "fellow Mainer" <- is this the correct term? It is (see the infobox for Maine).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is neatly set out in sections, the lede is of an appropriate size and coverage, there have been no identified issues with words to watch and the MOS for fiction and list incorporation does not apply in this case.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article provides all of its references, they are verifiable and the links work.
	2b. 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).	The majority of sources are published reliable secondary sources with some primary sources used as well.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have accessed Lufkin, Dow and Okrent and have had no issues with original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector rates it unlikely that a copyright has occurred with a 5.7% confidence. I will be looking at a couple of the sources to ensure that this is indeed the case. I have looked at a couple of the sources, Lufkin, Dow and Okrent and have found no issues with copyright.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article is indeed broad in its coverage without going to in depth so as to be trivial.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is indeed focused on it's subject; the life, political career, civil war career, post war political career and death of it's subject, Neal Dow.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral tone with balance between sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition, there are no on-going editwars over content disputes and no outstanding queries on the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The two issues noted below have been rectified. Both now have {{PD-1923}} tags placed on the image as per the requirement. Refer below; [File:Neal Dow daguerreotype.jpg] <- this image needs a PD-1923 tag for the U.S. [File:GenNSDow.jpg] <- this image also needs a PD-1923 tag for the U.S. I fixed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image captions are fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	A set of minor prose issues and also images that need their licenses updated to make the usable on the en.Wiki.

I will be using the above table to complete my review, you will find my comments under the appropriate sections as I make them. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I have completed my initial review of the article for GA. Mostly I have identified a set of minor prose issues that should be looked at and also a couple images that need to have tags added. The article is generally well-written and well sourced as well. It was an interesting read for a topic that I am not generally interested in; I was unaware of Dow, let alone, their instrumental role in Prohibitionism in the U.S. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance, otherwise, ping me when you have dealt with the issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus, If I am not mistaken, all of the issues that I had with prose and the images have been rectified. I believe that there is nothing left to do except to pass the article and congratulate you on bringing this article up to GA. Thanks for being so quick in responding and correcting the issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Thanks for the thorough review! Nice working with you. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)