Talk:Robert Todd Lincoln/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'll review this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
Prose is sufficient. Writing is clear with no obvious errors.
b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Significant layout issues. There is little organizational sense to how the sections are divided or the order that they are placed. The family and early life section is a massive stretch of various biographical details, while the career sections are sometimes just a couple sentences. Several paragraphs consist only of one or two sentences. Image formatting needs improvement.

There should not be a simple list of times he was portrayed in film. If such a section is to exist, it would need to give a prose description of how he has been portrayed and what its significance is based on reliable sources. A collection of misc trivia like this is also a criterion 3 issue.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):
Standard reference list with bibliography. There are a whole bunch of duplicate references that should be merged, but that's just a minor cleanup issue. Several of the books could also have links added to their archive.org copies so they're easier to access.
b. (citations to reliable sources):
I looked into Lincoln Bicentennial, and as far as I can tell, it is actually a copy of this Wikipedia article. Looking at c. 2007 versions of the article, it's almost an exact match, so it shouldn't be used as a source.

I'm not sure about the Lincoln Collection source on Tumblr. It does appear to be associated with the organization, but it might still be preferable to find a better source.

Is there any evidence that the following sources are reliable: abrahamlincolnonline.org, godeke.org, ghostsofdc.org, rogerjnorton.com, deepseawaters.com, etonline.com

The Shapell Primary Sources link appears to be dead.

All quotations must have inline citations immediately following them. There are a few uncited quotations.

Published opinions must have inline citations immediately following them. There are opinions of historians in the Legacy section that are unsourced.
c. (OR):
The biggest issue is the section on "presence at assassinations". Without the Lincoln Bicentennial source, the only source connecting them is one throwaway quip from Lincoln. A quick Google search shows several other sources noting the connection, so it should be easy to prove that it's not actually original research.
I've checked the following sources for source-text integrity. Of the five I checked, all of them have issues.
Emerson (2012): 6–7, 10, 100, 114–115, 116–117, 121, 124, 207–209 are good. Page 79 doesn't appear to say that he graduated in 1864. Page 418 doesn't seem to say anything about when they were married.

Bell (1981): This source does not specify the time period that it is being used to support.

Goff (1968): 68a, 70–71, 88 are good. Page 68 does not support the claim that his mother prevented him from enlisting.

Goodwin (2005): This source does not support that they may have reconciled before her death or that she had a stroke.

Sobel (1990): This source does not say that the degree was honorary.
d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
No apparent copyright violations. Earwig detects only a long quote and a source that copied from Wikipedia.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):
There are significant gaps in this biography, with almost all of the information being his college and young adulthood years. There's very little information about his childhood or about his career from the 1870s to the 1910s.

b. (focused):
There seems to be undue emphasis on minor details: on assassinations that happened while Lincoln was nearby and on one incident in which he was saved by Edwin Booth.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No undue weight for or against particular viewpoints. Does not disparage Lincoln or promote him.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No recent disputes.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
All images are public domain or Creative Commons.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images have sufficient captions. I'm not convinced that the images of other people are necessary, especially since they're all thumbnail size.
Overall: This article does not approach the good article criteria due to significant issues with formatting, sourcing, and missing content. It is likely that significant reworking of the article will be needed before it can become a good article. It can be relisted if the issues above are corrected or if any potential nominator feels that this article does in fact meet the good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.