This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SirGallantThe4th (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 14 June 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 21:05, 14 June 2022 by SirGallantThe4th (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below.SirGallantThe4th (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SirGallantThe4th: All issues have been addressed. A thorough copy-edit has been done to the article. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still spot a number of grammatical errors throughout the submission, and I am hesitant to pass it until they are fixed. I can do another copyedit of the article tomorrow, after which it will be ready to pass. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have gone through the article and have made edits to fix grammar and punctuation errors, re-worded overly simplistic sentences, added wikilinks wherever necessary, and removed redundancies or irrelevant information. In particular, a large portion of the "personal life and legacy" section was excised, as much of the information there was either redundant or bore little relevance to the subject.
- Please thoroughly check the revised article to ensure that no crucial information was lost during this copyedit process. Once I get a confirmation, I will go ahead and pass the article. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SirGallantThe4th: I have looked over your edits. Yes, they are good as far as I am concerned. Thanks for the improvements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There are a several run-on sentences here and there as well, such as "The date marks the first time a newspaper advertisement (Sun Drawn Miniatures) was published for a camera taking of a professional picture and it cost $3 ($81.00 in 2021)." and "By June, Wolcott had opened a branch in Washington D.C. which was operated by John G. Stevenson." The whole article needs a lot more commas. The current subject of the discussion seems to change rather abruptly, which is especially noticeable in the middle of a paragraph. For instance, the Daguerreian Parlor is brought up immediately after discussion of where Wolcott resided -- this transition felt very abrupt. I was so confused when I first read this that I went back up the article to see if I had missed its introduction. I only understood what the Parlor was after I read the sentence following it, but that explanation should be combined with the preceding sentence introducing it.
The above comments have been resolved. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Looks fine. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References look good. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Citations look good. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Looks fine. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main topic is addressed. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | There were a few times during my initial read-through where I believed some sentences were wholly unnecessary, but I suspect this may just be because of the way this article is currently written. (See comments in 1a) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article reads neutrally. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The last edit was made two months ago, so it looks fine. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are tagged correctly. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The images included are relevant and have suitable captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | The above comments have been resolved. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC) |