Talk:Thomas Lord Kimball/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Good day! Thank you for writing & nominating this article. I intend to review it. --Generalissima (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

Seems like a very well-researched article for its length. Dense with citations. Prose is well written and engaging.

Images

• File:Thomas Lord Kimball.jpg
  • Public domain due to age, so good on copyright front. Good portrait, well-suited for infobox.

• File:Thomas Lord Kimball (1888 Daily True American).png
  • Public domain due to age. Pose seems identical to the above - perhaps both were based off the same picture? In either case, I'm not sure if this picture adds to the article. It's just a lower-quality rendition of the same man from roughly the same angle. Perhaps a photo of Union Pacific infrastructure would be better suited?
    • I looked at the images for a while (before initially including this) and I doubt they were based on the same picture, though they do look quite similar. Agree that there are likely better photos but I've been unable to find any online; I think including modern UP infrastructure would not be particularly relevant. I am planning on visiting the records at the Huntington Library next time I make it out to LA and will likely find a better picture then, but until that point I think this is marginally worth including. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede

Flows well. Most claims are later elaborated on in the body. A couple sentences are a bit vague or muddled.

• "From there, he climbed the ranks, eventually being promoted to the position of third vice-president."
  • Is "third vice-president" a title, or was he the third person to be vice-president? I can't tell from this, but later context shows it to be the latter.
    • I've removed the word "third" here as it's not particularly relevant to an overview of his biography. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Kimball was a well-known figure in Omaha, though his fame was eclipsed by his son Thomas Rogers Kimball, who became a well-known architect."
  • This is a problematic sentence for several reasons. Calling him well-known, while indeed established in Daily True American, seems to fall under WP:PUFFERY. Such case does also not mention his notability in Omaha, nor that his son became more famous than him (even though all of these are likely events).
    • I've changed the phrasing a bit and updated the body so everything here should be supported by it. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Early life and career

Accurately summarizes from the sources used, which seem reliable and useful despite their contradiction. Describing the disparity between the two sources has been done in an engaging way, and I commend you on doing this to preserve NPOV. One, almost stylistic suggestion:

• "and his father" in the second sentence would be slightly less confusing as "while his father"
  • done. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Work with railroads

Good sources, well summarized. Same "third vice-president" issue as elaborated on prior, but to a dampened degree here.

Death

As a one line section, this could be folded into personal life, no? In any case, I would be sure to mention the location of his property (that he was still in Omaha).

• done. Elli (talk | contribs)

Personal Life

Mostly seems good here. I would specify that Nathaniel Peabody Rogers was an abolitionist.

Also, Thomas Lord Kimball Papers names his daughter as Frances, with an e. As Francis is a nigh-exclusively masculine name, while Frances a fairly typical (but now uncommon) feminine name, I think the Lincoln Journal Star simply made a spelling mistake.

• done, and I've used another source for the correct name. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Notes & References

Do not see any issues here.

General thoughts

Once these minor issues are corrected, I think it will be in a good state. --Generalissima (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I've made changes in line with your suggestions. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes. Here is my overall review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):
   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

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):

Overall:
This article fits the criteria of a Good Article. Good job :3

Generalissima (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.