Talk:Richard Henry Savage/GA1

GA Review

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

For the record, this is only my second GA review. I am relatively familiar with the subject matter, being involved in the GA review of Charles Pomeroy Stone. I'm also a primary contributor to the MacDougall page. If I make minor errors understanding this process, I hope the nominator will forgive me my relative inexperience.

Reviewer: BusterD (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lede doesn't adequately summarize or state notability. IMHO, the bulk of the content needs better sectioning and needs slightly broader coverage.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I see several areas where I could apply cite needed tags. I encourage the nominator to cite any assertion which might be questioned.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I believe this article is about 15¢ short of a dollar. I'd like to see the article bulked up a small amount, and sectioned a bit better in order to cover major aspects of this subject. If these minor aspects of the page are corrected, I see few obstacles to speedy passage.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Even the infobox image deserves a descriptive caption or alt text to help text-only readers who have no access to the images themselves.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have expanded the lead section to hit the man's major milestones, but I don't have a clear picture of what further improvements there are to make. Per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, I would appreciate some suggestions so that I can see the article through your eyes and address the concerns. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very nice article and meets GA requirements in almost every respect. For my part, I must not understand the endash rules; I see nowhere that spaces surrounding the endash is acceptable style (except in the infobox, a function of the infobox), plus there are several variations on the style inside this very pagespace. My remaining concerns relate to the difficulty in maintaining a chronological style with the several careers of the subject matter. At the very least, the first two paragraphs of "Death and legacy" have nothing to do with either his death or his legacy. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure IMDB meets the standard for RS either. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Much of IMDb is user-generated content. An attempt was made to allow some citing from it at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb but it couldn't get consensus. -maclean (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the IMDb cites with ones from other sources, except in two instances where I took out the sentence that had no alternate source. I also added another book to the list of works, and I took out the bolding of his name on all of those. I moved the Death and legacy heading down to the paragraph about his death, and I added a new heading called "New York life". Regarding "legacy", his wife and daughter form some of that, and the bit about Doc Savage finishes it up. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)