Talk:William F. Gannon/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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, I think this article is pretty close to GA. Before I do the prose review and the final copyvio check, I'd like to get your thoughts on the sources' independence and their effect on comprehensive, neutral coverage. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Ganesha811. Ergo Sum 02:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Hold for prose check. As is my usual practice, I've made a few prose tweaks myself to save us both time. Pass. If you have any issues with these changes, just let me know on talk and we can discuss.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, well-sourced/cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Hi! All the sources appear to be non-independent - i.e. they were created by organizations he was a part of or employed by. Could you discuss how you ensured the article was comprehensive and neutral given this limitation? I'm not saying that it isn't, just want to make sure that we're not missing anything. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This is a perennial problem with the biographies of academics, especially university leaders, and is something that I have discussed at some length in other related FAs and GAs (see one ongoing discussion). There is unfortunately only so much detailed coverage of Gannon out there and almost all of it is published by institutions with which he had some affiliation. However, those sources subject their published materials to the editorial process and here, none of them is used to cite any factual proposition that is dubious or controversial. They are used to just support basic biographical facts. Ergo Sum 02:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ok. I'm glad to see it's been discussed before, and I think the folks in that discussion made some good comments. I don't think it's enough to stand between this article and GA standard, though for me, I would not support an FA based only on these sources. Pass for this review. The Woodstock obituary appears to be a 404 link - if possible, could you replace with a live link and/or add an archive link? I've repaired the link. Ergo Sum 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing objectionable but I'm not sure it's capable of checking sources like this effectively; hold for manual check. Pass, nothing found by manual check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Unable to find other reliable sources that have anything more than his name listed, really. Does a good job with what information we have.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of excess detail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comment above on sources. Pass, discussed above.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No major changes since creation in May. No extant issues on talk page. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	1903 image is fine, out of copyright. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No other images that would really be useful, assuming there are no other images of Gannon available. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.