GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Katherine Sleeper Walden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cooljeanius (talk · contribs) 03:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

LGTM

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Seems fine
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    27 references at time of review
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Appropriate amount of biographical details
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Seems fine
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Had some large changes yesterday from significant content additions, but they weren't from an edit war or content dispute... Probably fine now.
  6. 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    7 images used, 6 of which are public domain, 1 of which is dual GFDL/CC-BY-3.0
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Might be worth letting it settle for a few days, but after that it ought to be fine to approve. Probably fine now.

Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admittedly I should have waited some time after making the changes before nominating, apologies. I think I tried to fill out the article 'last minute' and threw in pieces I thought missing. Sorry for the confusion, that was my mistake. Dionysius Millertalk 18:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've updated the time-related ones now. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cooljeanius I saw the request for a second-opinion. What input is needed? And just as an FYI for @Dionysius Miller, the last sentence of the 1st para in Revitalizing and organizing Wonalancet doesn't have a ref as of now, unless it's Boardman 2001, in which case should also be attached as an inline I think. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cooljeanius said that he was inexperienced enough that he didn't feel comfortable putting on the stamp of approval. Also, thanks for pointing that out. Dionysius Millertalk 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dionysius Miller I see. I'm certainly by no means qualified to comment on the source quality and think the content has the necessary breadth and depth. My only concerns would be to make the Lede more comprehensive in terms of covering a bit ab her childhood and actual death. The only big issue I see with the review at this point @Cooljeanius is simply just conducting a spotcheck, which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is looking at least ~5 sources on random to see if they are reliable and substantiate the claim. The only thing I see is that Ancestry is cited, which is deprecated as per WP:ANCESTRY, so I would recommend either replacing with a better source or deleting the content entirely. My other recommendation would be merging the final sentence para under Later life with the previous para since one-sentence paras should be used sparingly as per WP:PARAGRAPH, but other than that, I think this is really close to GA! And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this of course. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I added a sentence regarding her Boston life in the lead, consolidated the later life ending, and removed the Ancestry source. I think that further expansion of the lead may be more visually appealing but I'm not sure what more ought to be said. I believe that death, and wider inclusion of the circumstances, should only be put outside its section when the circumstances of a person's death are a major aspect of their notability. Of course I could be wrong, I'm still rather new.
Either way, I do want to note that it would probably be helpful if you made a determination in addition to Cooljeanius'. They decided a yes but felt that another set of eyes should check given their inexperience, so it might make sense for you (or another user if you don't have the time) to make a determination also and approve/hold/fail based on it. Dionysius Millertalk 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dionysius Miller Excellent regarding the Lede revisions and for removing Ancestry. I'd still say the stuff regarding Arthur Walden's death might warrant some minor discussion considering again the Lede should still be comprehensive and cover all aspects of the article nevertheless, but of course, I think the Lede as is is quite adequate and isn't a substantial factor for me. I'll look thru the article and first provide some prose stuff. For now, the only major comments I have are using a different word usage for Katherine was unable to walk on her own power as "power" may be mistaken for that of the oil burner and recommend improving the encyclopedic tone on this part: Arthur had no small part in contributing to Wonalancet's popularity. The renown for his sled dogs and his breeding program attracted May I recommend something like Arthur also contributed to Wonalancet's popularity, as his sled dogs and breeding program attracted ... or something to that effect? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a paragraph on Katherine's later life in the lead and changed wording somewhat in a few areas. I do look forward to any ideas you have prose-wise; I'm told I have a tendency to be a little too dramatic in tone frequently. Dionysius Millertalk 13:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan I've made some minor cleanup changes to the infobox, shortened the short descriptions, added some cats, and done much of the more pressing changes. I do have a couple stylistic questions regarding inclusions, however.
  1. What are your thoughts on the inclusion of her signature?
It appears to be the only easily found version of the signature but is rather low quality (image, I mean). Do you know of a method generally used, cases similar to this, and/or whether inclusion follow the existing guidelines?
  1. Do you believe the Legacy section is worthwhile?
Dionysius Millertalk 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dionysius Miller Apologies for not responding for a while, I was busy with some IRL stuff. I'll definitely look at the comments above and respond to them by today and will also intend on doing a full prose review afterwards, more about that later. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, infobox appears solid. I'd recommend an SD that's more accessible to a broad audience, smth as simple as American environmental activist might work, but clarify that she is American in the SD. Cats all seem pretty good. Signature is fine, as the image source seems to be reliable enough to warrant an inclusion, I'm not to experienced regarding the image issues so I'll refrain from that (do note that primary sources are frowned upon as per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but since the postmaster doc isn't being used to affirm any information. Regarding image quality, it seems to meet WP:IQR, and I would assume that you obtained the best quality screenshot you could. The low-quality seems fine to me, as there isn't a "quality" threshold for these things, as again it's identifiable and the characters are legible. However, my big concern is regarding the actual source itself, so in your response, let me know if you can find an alternative source, and if not, I'll see what can be done.
Legacy section is definitely worthwhile, it covers all that it needs to, but I would recommend if you can trying to find sources to enumerate the mountain ranges and other geographical regions after in, in addition to further clarifying how various pieces regarding her life have contributed to the White Mountains history in order to better meet GC#3a. Apologies for the long-winded response here lol, but I'll again get to a thorough prose comb-through by tmrw. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories