Talk:Thomas Edison/GA1

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The lead needs to be expanded, to better summarise the article.

• "Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" by a newspaper reporter...". All quotations need to be attributed immediately.

• "There are many other examples of unattributed quotations: "According to Edison, Hammer was 'a pioneer of incandescent electric lighting' "; "Edison said he wanted the lab to have 'a stock of almost every conceivable material' "; "a judge ruled that Edison's electric light improvement claim for 'a filament of carbon of high resistance' was valid."

• There are six {{fact}} tags in the article that need to be dealt with.

• What's the relevance of this sentence "There were 28 men recognized as Edison Pioneers", tagged onto the end of Work relations?

• Why does footnote #51 repeat the quotation contained in the body of the article?

• Tributes looks rather like a disguised Trivia section, and I think needs to be re-worked. The subsections are really too short, with many short, one-sentence paragraphs.

• There are two books by Mark Essig listed in the Bibliography. The ISBN of the first is actually for A Bolt of fate by Tom Tucker.

• "He was counting on taking the film to US and recapture the huge cost of it by showing it throughout the US when he realized it has already been showing in the US by Edison." Needs rewriting to make sense.

• "After protracted patent litigation, in 1892 a federal court ruled that Edison—and not Emile Berliner—was the inventor of the carbon microphone. (Josephson, p146)." The article should use a consistent citation format.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)