Jump to content

Talk:Mary Florence Potts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMary Florence Potts was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 31, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Mary Florence Potts patented various styles of cold-handle clothes irons that were the most popular irons ever used?
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Florence Potts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 09:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this review for the GAN October 2020 Backlog Drive. MWright96 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Infobox

[edit]
  • The birth and death places are missing from the infobox
Added.

Biography

[edit]
  • "Her husband passed away in 1901," - predeceased her
Changed.
  • "and she became the co-owner of Potts Manufacturing Company with Oscero by 1910. Their company produced optical goods." - think the text in bold can be merged into the preceding sentence
Merged.
  • "She passed away on June 24, 1922" - more formal; died
Changed.
  • The Morning Post says she died in Baltimore and was buried at New Camden Cemetry
Added.

Inventions

[edit]
  • "The iron was designed with comfort and convenience in mind. It replaced the metal handle which was prone to getting hot with a cool wooden one that was more comfortable to hold." - I think merging these sentences will help matters here
Merged.
  • "The iron shape was double-pointed for operating in both directions. It was made of hollow rather than solid metal." - these two sentences could be better off merged together
Merged.
  • "that was a poor conductors" - conductor
Changed.
  • "user like its predecessor with old-styled conventional solid metal did." - the word indiciated in bold isn't needed IMO
Removed, along with "old-styled" which felt redundant.
  • "was that they didn't" - did not
Changed.
I used "to" and I suppose that is what was intended.
  • "prevent burning the fingers." - either burning of the fingers or burned fingers will be better than the current version
Went with the latter.

Legacy

[edit]
  • "The Pott's iron mechanism was used worldwide through the twentieth century" - 20th
Changed.
  • "Her innovation of a removable handle mechanism of 1871" - in
Changed.
  • "Gillette's application was a removable disposable blade and reinsertion of a sharp blade" - think the grammar in this portion of text can be improved here
Rewrote.

References

[edit]
  • Reference 3 is missing the access date
Added.
  • Reference 10 is missing the work
Added.
  • All mentions of newspapers.com should begin with a capital letter
Done.
  • Reference 21 is missing the date it was published and the page number is A6
MWright96, I have added the date it was published. However, I am unsure about "A6" since Newspapers.com says it is just "Page 6". Let me know if that should be changed. Thank you for your review! — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWright96: All issues have been addresses. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am putting the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: & @Doug Coldwell: Now promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]