Talk:Romney Literary Society/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Freikorp in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- I can't say I see a lot of point to the level 2 'History' heading, I mean since the only thing not contained under the History heading is the short Legacy section. Why not remove the Level 2 history heading and make all the subsequent level 3 headings level 2 ones instead
- Freikorp, thank you for your guidance on this. I've incorporated your suggestion into the article. Let me know if this looks good to go! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good. Freikorp (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, thank you for your guidance on this. I've incorporated your suggestion into the article. Let me know if this looks good to go! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- "was organized on a cold winter evening" - I don't see any purpose of specifying it was cold or winter; wording doesn't sound very encyclopaedic, but up to you
- Freikorp, I've removed "on a cold winter evening" per your guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if 'Debates' is the right heading, since only debates from 1819 to 1822 are included. Perhaps it should be titled 'Early' or 'Initial' debates. Also is there any particular reason you've chosen to detail the debates of the first 4 meetings? The section seems extremely focused on the first debates and pays little attention to any subsequent debates. I'd say you could have stopped at the details of first 2 debates, as this gives the reader a general idea of what the society debated. Listing the debates of the third and fourth meeting just seems a bit too over detailed.
- Freikorp, I've modified the section title to "Early debates" per your guidance. Little is known about the later debates, so I wanted to include as much detail here to give the reader a sense of the topics debated by the society. If it is alright with you, I'd like to leave in the added detail on the subsequent two debates. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Freikorp (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, I've modified the section title to "Early debates" per your guidance. Little is known about the later debates, so I wanted to include as much detail here to give the reader a sense of the topics debated by the society. If it is alright with you, I'd like to leave in the added detail on the subsequent two debates. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the 'Growth and influence' section the following text appears: "No records of the society's proceedings, works, or membership enrollments spanning the period between January 22, 1830 and 1861 are extant, as they were later destroyed during the American Civil War." Later in the Civil War section, the following text appears: "Its records of proceedings between January 22, 1830 and 1861, the period during which the society most flourished and engaged in most of its notable literary and philanthropic work, were also destroyed during the war." Obviously this information is repeated in a fair amount of detail. I would suggest either completely removing one of the mentions of at least significantly shortening the second mention as the reader is already aware of this information.
- Freikorp, I struck a balance here so as not to be too repetitive. In the first mention, I've rendered it as: "No records of the society's proceedings, works, or membership enrollments spanning the period between January 22, 1830 and 1861 are extant." And in the second mention, I state: "Its records of proceedings between 1830 and 1861, the period during which the society engaged in most of its notable literary and philanthropic works, were also destroyed during the war." Does this still seem repetitive? If so, I can modify them further. Thanks for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm this one's a bit tricky, but if thats the way you want to word it it's fine with me. Freikorp (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, I struck a balance here so as not to be too repetitive. In the first mention, I've rendered it as: "No records of the society's proceedings, works, or membership enrollments spanning the period between January 22, 1830 and 1861 are extant." And in the second mention, I state: "Its records of proceedings between 1830 and 1861, the period during which the society engaged in most of its notable literary and philanthropic works, were also destroyed during the war." Does this still seem repetitive? If so, I can modify them further. Thanks for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can't say I see a lot of point to the level 2 'History' heading, I mean since the only thing not contained under the History heading is the short Legacy section. Why not remove the Level 2 history heading and make all the subsequent level 3 headings level 2 ones instead
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- The first thing that needs to be addressed in this article is the size of the lead. I've never seen an article with more than 5 lead paragraphs, let alone 7. As per WP:LEAD, an article of this size may have 4 paragraphs in the lead. Please shorten the lead considerably.
- Freikorp, I've trimmed down the lede considerably so that it meets the guidance laid out in WP:LEAD. Please take a look and let me know if this will need any further slimming down to proceed. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that it has been shortened to four paragraphs is great, but the last paragraph is far too long. I'd suggest cutting it down to only slightly bigger than the third paragraph at biggest. I think you can drop the sentence "During the war, many members fought for the Confederate Army and were killed during the conflict." There's also no need to repeat that the library had 3,000 volumes as this is mentioned earlier. How about shortening to: "The Romney Literary Society and the Romney Classical Institute continued to grow in influence until the onset of the American Civil War in 1861. The contents of the society's library were plundered by Union Army forces and following the war's end, only 400 of the library's volumes could be recovered. Following the war, the Romney Literary Society reorganized in 1869 and took a lead role in Romney's civil development during Reconstruction. Between 1869 and 1870, the society completed construction of Literary Hall, where it held meetings and reassembled its library. In 1870, the society used its influence to secure the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind for the town of Romney, and offered its former Romney Classical Institute campus to the state for the institution. Their bid was successful and the schools opened on September 29, 1870. Interest in the society waned during its final years, and its final meeting was held on February 15, 1886." I think you can get rid of the entire last sentence as well as it just seems to recap the rest of the lead anyway. Freikorp (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, I've removed the "during the war" sentence, dropped the legacy tail to the final paragraph, and incorporated your rewriting of the midsection in the last paragraph. Freikorp, I thank you and appreciate your assistance in the slimming down of the lede. I have a habit of being verbose, and sometimes include a lot more content than is really needed. Thanks for the suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that it has been shortened to four paragraphs is great, but the last paragraph is far too long. I'd suggest cutting it down to only slightly bigger than the third paragraph at biggest. I think you can drop the sentence "During the war, many members fought for the Confederate Army and were killed during the conflict." There's also no need to repeat that the library had 3,000 volumes as this is mentioned earlier. How about shortening to: "The Romney Literary Society and the Romney Classical Institute continued to grow in influence until the onset of the American Civil War in 1861. The contents of the society's library were plundered by Union Army forces and following the war's end, only 400 of the library's volumes could be recovered. Following the war, the Romney Literary Society reorganized in 1869 and took a lead role in Romney's civil development during Reconstruction. Between 1869 and 1870, the society completed construction of Literary Hall, where it held meetings and reassembled its library. In 1870, the society used its influence to secure the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind for the town of Romney, and offered its former Romney Classical Institute campus to the state for the institution. Their bid was successful and the schools opened on September 29, 1870. Interest in the society waned during its final years, and its final meeting was held on February 15, 1886." I think you can get rid of the entire last sentence as well as it just seems to recap the rest of the lead anyway. Freikorp (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, I've trimmed down the lede considerably so that it meets the guidance laid out in WP:LEAD. Please take a look and let me know if this will need any further slimming down to proceed. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- The first thing that needs to be addressed in this article is the size of the lead. I've never seen an article with more than 5 lead paragraphs, let alone 7. As per WP:LEAD, an article of this size may have 4 paragraphs in the lead. Please shorten the lead considerably.
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, thank you again for the taking the time from your busy schedule to engage in this very thorough and comprehensive review of this article. I appreciate your guidance, and have incorporated it to the best of my abilities. Please re-review and let me know if any further changes or additions need to be made in the meantime. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Great work. I'm happy to pass this now. :) Freikorp (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Freikorp, thank you again! It's been a privilege and a pleasure working with you throughout this process! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- @West Virginian: You're very welcome. The only problem i'm having with this now is i'm not sure where to list it at Wikipedia:Good articles. It doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the languages and literature sub-categories. Where do you think it should be placed? Freikorp (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: Unfortunately, I believe this article may have to be recategorized under Wikipedia:Good articles/History and the subsection North American history, for lack of a better category and subcategory. -- West Virginian (talk)
- Thanks. Done. Freikorp (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)