Talk:Hammer Historical Collection of Incandescent Electric Lamps/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 07:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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:
- 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 references are incorrectly formatted. Please unify the "references" and "sources" sections into the "references" section by moving citations inline and using the {{cite}} templates, and then remove the "sources" section. Consider adding access dates or source dates to references where possible.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 8 October 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- The statement "The collection of lamp bulbs is the most comprehensive known in the world." in the lead paragraph should be cited.
- 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:
- Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Much of the page text is very similar in layout to one of the referenced pages. It isn't copied verbatim and has certainly been paraphrased beyond changing a word here and there, but it could probably benefit from more paraphrase and more combination of material from different sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 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):
- Try to relate the second paragraph of "American Institute of Electrical Engineers" to the exhibit itself; currently, it makes statements of fact about the development of lightbulbs in general terms. This is not a blocking issue; it's reasonably intuitive (I think?) how the material relates to the topic.
- 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:
- I noticed that most images were tagged PD-US even though they stated publication before 1923, so I updated most of them to use PD-1923 instead. However, a handful are mysteriously licensed under CC ShareAlike with caveats - are we able to determine if there was some creative effort that gave rise to the claim of copyright for specifically those images? They seem to have identical provenance... I don't think mere digitization confers copyright, but I'm no expert. It would also be good for someone to eventually clear any possible claim of copyright from the PD-1923 images over at commons. However, as it stands, there are no copyright issues apparent with the images in use on the page.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- This is an extraordinarily well-illustrated article! Well done!
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Once the outstanding issues above with citations are resolved, I think we can promote this to GA.
- Pass or Fail:
- @Falcon Kirtaran: I believe I corrected those items of issue. If I missed something, let me know and I will gladly fix.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good! The references technically meet the MoS guidelines but could probably be moved to citations; the rest of the advice here is completely optional for a GA. Congratulations on the good article! As an aside, if you're ever in Seattle, I think you might enjoy the Museum of Communications. FalconK (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Falcon Kirtaran: Thanks for GA status. Thanks for advice - I think I have now formatted the Reference section the way you suggested. Yes, the Museum of Communications would be right up my ally - especially since my background was as an electronic's technician repairing computers.-- Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Falcon Kirtaran: I believe I corrected those items of issue. If I missed something, let me know and I will gladly fix.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)