Talk:Lyman Hall (academic)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a short, but nice article (the size is fine). I did find a few issues though:

"He is most known for bringing what is now the School of Polymer, Textile & Fiber Engineering to Georgia Tech, although new degrees introduced during Hall's administration included electrical engineering and civil engineering in December 1896, textile engineering in February 1899, and engineering chemistry in January 1901." This feels a bit like a run-on and could probably be split into two sentences.
- It probably could be split into two sentences for clarity, but it isn't technically a run-on from a grammatical standpoint. It's just a "long sentence," which, depending on the desired style, can be considered correct or incorrect mechanically, but it is correct from a strict grammatical standpoint. A minor point and a pet peeve to be sure, but it's something that you might want to know for the future. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I went ahead and split up the sentence anyway. MaxVeers (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He was appointed to the United States Military Academy in 1877, and graduated from West Point in 1881." This makes it sound like he got an academic position there, when really he got in as a student.
- Because of the way that the application process for military academies works (potential cadets must be nominated by a senator, if I'm not mistaken), saying that he was "appointed" is proper language for this context. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Rephrased this as "admitted". Feel free to revert if you find the previous phrasing more accurate. MaxVeers (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"but the quote from geologist Sir Archibald Geikie's 1905 published work remains on the front of the building: "In the first place I would put accuracy."" Should be cited.
- Done This appears to be resolved. MaxVeers (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the first source, I would prefer noting it as a general source and adding in page numbers for each part used. Since it's 500 pages it could be anywhere in that book.
- Done I added the page numbers in HTML comments. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #6 is a dead link (polymer, textile, etc.) and ref #4 (bios of early presidents) isn't working for me; I get a 403 error with a bad certificate.
- Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this on hold for a few days and will pass upon completion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. We'll try to work on these as soon as possible. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. Just fix that last point about the first ref and I'll pass it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Article passed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]