Talk:William Henry Egle

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Henry Egle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Prose:

MoS: Hyphens were frequently used where the MoS suggests the use of en dashes. I have corrected this.

• Noted. Thank you. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Refs:

OR: There is no sign of OR and all Earwig flags relate to the titles of publications.

Broad: The article covers all significant incidents in the subject's life.

Focus: The article remains focused on the subject throughout.

Neutral: There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.

Stable: The only substantial edits since creation are from the nom. There are no active discussions or disputes on the Talk page.

Images: All images used are free use.

Comments:

• The final image: should "Pension" have an upper case p?
• Also, would it be possible to cite this image caption in the normal way?

• DONE. Good questions. Based on how these records have been published by the U.S. National Archives (NARA), Fold3, Ancestry.com, and the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah, the "P" in "Pension" should be upper case. Per NARA: "Microfilm Publication T288: General Index to Pension Files, 1861-1934"; per Fold3 (which is partnering with the Wikipedia Library): "Civil War Pension Index." Have completed recaptioning of the image. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Several books for which ISBNs or OCLCs are available lack them. (Eg Pennsylvania: Genealogies Chiefly Scotch-Irish and German. (OCLC 938548954)) Could you go through adding them where appropriate. Shout if this is a problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Will research and work on this one later tonight after I get home from work, and will try to have it done by your morning tomorrow. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I use WorldCat.Click on the correct edition, then scroll down for the ISBN or OCLC.

• @Gog the Mild: ISBNs and OCLC added. Please review when you have a moment. Thank you. 47thPennVols (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion. "In 1864, he was promoted to the rank of major on August 12" reads oddly to my eyes. Perhaps 'On August 12 1864, he was promoted to the rank of major'?

• DONE. (Good catch. Thanks.) 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion. "when the regiment was transferred to the XXV Corps' 3rd Brigade, 2nd Division and service with the Department of Texas." Perhaps '.. . and saw service in the Department.. '?

• DONE. Also changed the second "transferred" to "re-assigned" to eliminate the redundancy. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion only. "valued at $15,000"; 'valued at $15,000, equivalent to $361,000 in 2023,.. . '?

• TO BE DOUBLE CHECKED DONE. Great suggestion. I've attempted to insert your phrasing from above, but it looks like I may not have done so correctly. (I've never used one of those inflation calculator tags before. Could you please double check, and fix any errors you see?) 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• "By 1887, however, he had been appointed as State Librarian". I am not sure that the "however" is appropriate here, IMO it reads better without it.

• DONE. (Great catch. Thanks.)

• "Egle contracted the grippe, which then devolved into pneumonia." "devolved"? I am not sure that an illness can devolve. And it reads oddly. Would it be possible to find a different form of words?

• DONE. Yep. That was definitely a horrid turn of phrase. Have changed to: ".... Egle contracted the grippe, which then turned into pneumonia. He died from related complications in Harrisburg...." Does that work better? 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• The lead. This is fine and I am not suggesting that you change it. However, little of the second paragraph is a summary of information already in the main article. It looks like good information, so if you can source it can I suggest that you add it to the main article in the appropriate places.

• Will try to get to this one before I head out to work this afternoon. If not, will work on this one tonight, along with the aforementioned ISBN changes. Again, many thanks! 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Gog the Mild: FOR YOUR REVIEW. Thanks so much for your thoughts on this. (It was fine, but you were right that there was still room for improvement.) I got onto such a roll with revisions that I'm still home editing, but feel confident that I've done what needed to be done. Would appreciate your taking another look. Changes made: a.) I tweaked the second paragraph of the lead a bit (which I think you saw), and then corrected the death date in that par to 1901; and b.) added new content in two sections of the article body to support and source the wording in the lead's second paragraph (some of which I think you've seen, some of which is new because I found more about Egle's honorary degree and death). The article body adjustments were made to: a.) Post-war life (paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5), and b.) Death and interment (paragraphs 1 and 2). Let me know if this works. I'll get to work on the ISBN numbers after I grab a sandwich and another cup of coffee. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to start work on these. I just need to check out the references. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• The link at ref 27 is non-specific. Otherwise they seem fine.

• QUESTION: What do you recommend with this one? 47thPennVols (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I think that one needs a log in to access. Non-members just see the home page. So I have added "(Registration needed.)" to the ref. Let me know if this isn't the case, or you don't like the proposed solution.

• Elegant solution. Thank you. (DONE.) 47thPennVols (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That's it. Address these, or persuade me you don't need to, and you have a (very good quality) GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking good. I tweaked the "wife and daughter" bit to avoid a comic misreading. Revert if you don't like it. You inserted the inflation calculator correctly (I usually need to do a bit of trial and error to get these right) but accidently copy and pasted an ellipsis; I have removed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Per above, I've completed the ISBNs/OCLCs and revisions to body of the article to better match the lead. It looks like I've checked off everything on your list, but if I haven't (or if you think of anything else), please let me know. Many thanks for your time and insights. This was fun. 47thPennVols (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Fun? It's supposed to be stressful! I clearly didn't give you a hard enough time. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A well written, interesting, comprehensive and densely referenced article with a large variety of sources. I like to think that the subject would have approved. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you so much for your kind words and for making my first GAN process such an informative one. I've learned a great deal from you over the past several months. You're an excellent mentor, and have helped improve the quality of my articles significantly. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed