Talk:Scranton general strike/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Timothyjosephwood in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This looks fine in my initial review. I intend to have the review completed by the end of the week and will have comments by then of what needs fixed, if necessary. I'm glad after the work put in on this article that it's getting a GA review. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- I don't like the citations in the lede; it evinces a failure to establish these claims in either the background or concluding sections. The citations aren't prohibited so I'm not requiring a change. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The format of the sources looks ok. As I verify I'm finding cases where the citation isn't accurate. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- The last Azzerelli citation needs a correct page number. I cleaned most of this up myself but shouldn't have to. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
- No sources verified the number of strikers so I removed the "30,000" claim. Bruce on page 296 says that
"35,000 people depended utterly on the shops, mills, and mines of the anthracite railroads"
but that's much larger than just the striking employees. Azzerelli mentions a few thousand onlookers had gathered in the town square but those aren't all striking workers, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)- It was ridiculously laborious to go through citations and probably unnecessarily so. I put a lot more work in on this than I should have had to. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- No sources verified the number of strikers so I removed the "30,000" claim. Bruce on page 296 says that
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- The quote in the notes from Huidekoper is unnecessary and really undue. I don't see the import of this quote, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed it myself since asking for it to be done was too much. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The quote in the notes from Huidekoper is unnecessary and really undue. I don't see the import of this quote, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All images are public domain. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Upon further reflection, I don't see a good reason to include both of the Pittsburgh riot images; I'd choose one or the other. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- You addressed my concerns here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection, I don't see a good reason to include both of the Pittsburgh riot images; I'd choose one or the other. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Timothyjosephwood: Sorry for the horrific delay on this review. The GA Cup started on November 1st and I grabbed five nominees out the gate to ensure I'd get those points. Sadly, it's been a slog going through each review and I'm now focusing my attention on this with three other reviews more or less done. I plan to have this review done next and I'd like to finish it this weekend. I'll continue to post notes as I make progress verifying sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Chris troutman, don't worry about it. No rush. Let me know if I can be of any help. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Chris:
- One of the Pittsburgh pictures has been removed.
- The footnote quote by Huidekoper has been shortened by about half. I do still think it adds some context, that the troops left on good terms, but a lot of the general commentary by the general didn't add anything to this effect.
- I have removed all of the page numbers from the Azzarelli citations. The e-book version does not include page numbers at all, and I've been unable to find an alternate version that does. Per guidance at Wikipedia:Citing sources, I have therefore replaced the page numbers with section numbers.
- The citations in the lead are mainly to establish a WP:COMMONNAME rationale. I have condensed them into a single ref to avoid over citation.
- Hopefully this resolved the issues identified thus far. Apologies for the trouble. I have little to no experience with GA noms. I've simply never bothered to nominate anything I've worked on thus far. If there's anything else that needs addressed, feel free to let me know. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: I'm going through this source material to verify information and add page numbers (which takes a fair amount of my time) and you think it's appropriate to undo my work? You need to rethink how you treat my effort to help this pass and my comments thus far. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah. I didn't realize those had just been added. I have restored. I will try to find a source for the missing page number. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ping @Chris troutman: just in case. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: I'm going through this source material to verify information and add page numbers (which takes a fair amount of my time) and you think it's appropriate to undo my work? You need to rethink how you treat my effort to help this pass and my comments thus far. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Chris:
Hey Chris. I realize you're busy, but I hope I've addressed the issues raised above. I apologize for the misunderstanding over the page numbers. But overall, when you get time, I'd like to see where this goes. There's a couple of other articles that I think would be greatly improved by the kind of in-depth critique this involves, but I hesitate to have too many irons in the GA fire at the same time. TimothyJosephWood 13:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: No, you didn't remove the note I asked about. I spent a lot of time going through these citations, checking books out of the library to confirm everything, and now I'm thinking perhaps the GA criteria doesn't even require it. So, I can offer you a profuse apology about the inexcusable delay or I can offer you nothing at all since my words make no difference, anyway. Your choice. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well...I thank you for your efforts. You've certainly caught a lot of errors and problems with refs that got muddled in the process. But I can say as my first nom, that if every GA is as adversarial as this one, I might not be a frequent visitor. 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not. I took on this review at a difficult time and I was really trying to do more than what was necessary. By all means, continue to nominate articles for GA. I promise I won't review your nominations so as not to put you off the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not at all. I appreciate your exceedingly exceptional thoroughness. It's done a great service to the article, and I would be grateful to have you review even more in the same manner. I just hope that such as process in the future could be more of a collaboration than a contest. We're both here to make the encyclopedia better, and you've gone above and beyond in that respect. Keep up the good work. TimothyJosephWood 02:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not. I took on this review at a difficult time and I was really trying to do more than what was necessary. By all means, continue to nominate articles for GA. I promise I won't review your nominations so as not to put you off the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well...I thank you for your efforts. You've certainly caught a lot of errors and problems with refs that got muddled in the process. But I can say as my first nom, that if every GA is as adversarial as this one, I might not be a frequent visitor. 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)