Talk:Casper Shafer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Michael! (talk · contribs) 11:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll review this article. Michael! (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First GA review

At first sight, the article seems informative and correctly annotated. It certainly has the potential to become a good article. However, there are several issues.

A few remarks: please correct

• The article lacks structure and is a bit ... cluttered. Separating the text in a lead and at least two or three sections could greatly improve the article.

• Define cluttered...its structure is presented largely in chronological order just any standard biography should. You are asking for sections...which given the overall length of the article are not appropriate or required. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, a one-paragraph introduction is more than adequate. Per WP:LEAD, please explain how it is not a concise overview that (a) defines the topic, (b) establishes context, (c) explains notability, and (d) summarizes the most important points. While per WP:LEAD we are advised "Once an article has been sufficiently expanded, generally to around 400 or 500 words, editors should consider introducing section headings"--the operative word is "should" not "must" which implies and offers discretion given the overall size and scope of the article. I would assert that section headings are not necessary here because they would be cumbersome separating a brief lead with the following few paragraphs of biographical material. Likewise WP:SECTIONS only advises that they "should" be created, not "must"--again offering editors discretion. If this the idea you intend by claiming a lack of "structure" I would advise that there are several GAs without separate sections after consideration of the length, subject matter, and format of the article. This article does not not conform with some of those GAs.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Cluttered" is definitely the wrong word, I apologize. Separating the text into short sections increases the readability. One large piece of text can look quite unattractive at first glance. It's pity if people don't read this article, just because of the layout. Of course, sections aren't a "must", but the article could benefit from it.Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I conceded it can be unattractive, but I doubt people would run away from a 7 paragraph article that appropriately eschews unbalanced divisions. Moreso, I doubt people would run away from an article searched for or clicked out of curiosity just because of sections or a lack thereof. Given Wikipedia's perpetually unfinished state, people search for and suffer through far worse articles. A very succinct 7 paragraph article isn't unreadable, and I don't see much of a benefit by splitting the article into one paragraph sections (after all, WP:BODY says "Very short...sections and subsections in an article look cluttered.")--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Biography" section split off from the one-paragraph lead (to which was added one sentence). Please advise if this is acceptable, or if you can suggest a better alternative. I find this unbalanced and cumbersome preferring the undivided version which did not violate any specific condition of WP:LEAD or WP:SECTIONS.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The one-paragraph lead is good (I like the last sentence), but I agree that just a single section "Biography" makes the article unbalanced. I was more thinking of splitting it in three sections, something like "early life/background", "political activities", "death/remembrance". It's up to you how to exactly divide the text into sections and to give the new sections proper names.Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. When it comes to the five paragraphs of biography, splitting into three sections long those lines would leave an article where 3/5ths of it would be in an early life section, 1/5 in political activity, and 1/5th in death/remembrance. When it comes to sections, I don't think a 7 paragraph article is going to drive away readers, and I think any section splitting given the article's size is going to be aesthetically unbalanced. If we can agree to disagree given the lack of a policy dictate, I'd prefer to leave it as 7 solid paragraphs (for another unsectioned GA--one I reviewed--see Tornada (Occitan literary term))--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Although I personally prefer clear, informative text above irrelevant images, I do think this article could benefit from more pictures.

• What kind of images would you like to see? There are no known pictures of Shafer. The only other photo I can conceive of as being immediately available would be his gravestone. Again, the standard is images "if possible," and given there's no portrait of Shafer, there's very little more "possible." Secondly, image placement has to be considered with judgment and common sense...the article length doesn't really warrant any more images and the two areamong the more illustrative.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a picture of his tombstone, or a memorial or something - but not a third gray building. If you could find a portrait, that would be even better, although I can imagine no portraits have survived or even existed. Too much images would be an overkill for such a short article, but one more, attractive picture could improve the article. Nevertheless, this isn't a ground for denying GA status neither. Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It has been my intention to take a photo of this and other tombstones in North Jersey, and was waiting for fairer weather as Spring approached, I will arrange for a photograph of Shafer's tombstone as soon as I can.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• The "See also" section seems to be unnecessary. German Palatines appears already in the main text itself, so it ought not to be listed under the "See also" section. Although History of Sussex County, New Jersey isn't directly mentioned in the body text, Sussex County, New Jersey is. It might be a good idea to remove the "See also" section completely.

•  Done - section removed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree this assessment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Although the use of isn't wrong, I prefer , since this is less interruptive. Just think about it. No big deal.

• I do not prefer that alternate form of citation. Per WP:IC and WP:CITE any form of reference supported by wikipedia is acceptable. While many editors use short citations, I do not find them practical and prefer the efficacy of the {{rp}} template. This difference of opinion/diverging preferences on citation styles is not grounds for denying a GA nomination--especially as there is no objection to the misuse of the citation style. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, your citation style is absolutely correct and completely justified. Citation style certainly isn't a ground for denying a GA. Just like other remarks, I wanted you to think about it again and have a second look at it. As I said: no big deal. Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I do consider citations depending on the style and subject of an article I work on, and for this type of articles, I find the {{rp}} template to work best.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "From Rotterdam, Shafer emigrated to the American colonies aboard the ship Queen Elizabeth commanded by Alexander Hope, and entered Philadelphia on 16 September 1738." Although I can't say it is grammatically incorrect, it might be a good idea to think about the wording order again.

• If you object to it but cite nothing grammatically wrong or anything specifically confusing, please provide an suggestion for revision. The passivity of "might be a good idea to think about" does not tell me much, especially as I find the sentence rather clear and efficient.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Apologies for my passive vagueness. There's just something in the first part of the sentence which attracted my attention, but I can't say what. I don't have any suggestions to rewrite it yet. Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• When you think of a suggestion, I will gladly consider it. In the meantime (regarding GA passage), do you have an insurmountable objection to its current form?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "At sometime after ...": Don't you mean "At some time after ..." or "Sometime after ..." ?

•  Done - "at some time after"--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jonathan Hampton: page doesn't exist.

• This redlink will be resolved. However an occasional redlink is not grounds for denying a GA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Done resolved by creating a Hampton article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly didn't mean this is a ground for denying a GA, I just wanted you to have a second look at it. Sometimes redlinks are inserted accidentally. Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• If I insert a redlink, it is usually in the spirit of WP:RED that it serve as a reminder to start an article when the present work is concluded, or that someone else do will do it as Wikipedia grows.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "flatboat": perhaps change it to flatboat?

•  Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why do Germany, Paulins Kill, Philadelphia and Rotterdam have hyper-references to Wikipedia articles, but Delaware River not? There are a few other such words and names. Have a second look at it.

•  Done as for Delaware River. Please cite other examples needing linking. I do not see any other obvious possibilities.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• First occurrence of "Burlington", "Abia Brown", "Provincial Congress". Perhaps one or more wikilinks in "German Reformed and Lutheran clergy" too. Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Abia Brown will likely not become notable enough for a standalone article. Linked Burlington, German Reformed , and Lutheran. Will look for an appropriate link for Provincial Congress--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• linked to Provincial Congress of New Jersey.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "typo" (in footnote 3): not wrong, but you might want to rephrase it.

•  Done expanded to "typographical error"--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• While reading the article, I suddenly asked myself several questions. Why is this person important? Why isn't he forgotten? Should he have a Wikipedia article of his own? Nobody would reject an article on Shakespeare, but an article about my neighbour would be not acceptable, even if it is clear, well written, purely informative, and unbiased. Describing Shafer's (historical) importance more elaborately could solve these doubts. A few well placed sentences could be enough.

• Just because a man isn't great or moved the tides of time, it does not render him not notable. Town founders, early legislators, colonial figures, are entirely notable even if their relevance to the modern age or popular tastes renders them largely obscure or lost to the dustbin of history. I think that's a specious complaint at this point. Some people like Justin Bieber, I don't and wish he was forgotten. Yet others, like me, prefer Palestrina--which most people never have heard of. I've sufficiently established Shafer's notability. Whether you've heard of him or not, or whether think him relevant to your circle of interest, is not salient. To each his own. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I don't disagree with you that Casper Shafer has an article of his own. The new lead improves the whole article and its justification, by the way. However, always keep in mind how an average person/visitor would look at such an article. Does it look interesting? Is it about something/someone important? Is it worth my time? - If not, they won't read your article, which is pity. You're not writing for yourself only, but for a general public.Michael! (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I do keep that in mind, however, the subjects I usually write about are ignored or obscure is this intellectually-degenerate age, so if it is of interest to someone, and that person finds it, I hope they enjoy it and if they don't, I hope their interest in sharing it creates another contributor.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; seems okay
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. no lead section, poor layout
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; passed in general, one minor remark
   2. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; passed
   3. it contains no original research. seems okay
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; could be expanded
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). passed
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. seems okay
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. passed
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: could use more images
   1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; passed
   2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. passed

Conclusion

Although I do think this article has the potential to become a GA, I don't think it is a GA right now. I can't say whether it needs a complete overhaul, or if just a few minor but fundamental edits would suffice. Therefore, I've put it "on hold" for a week. I hope you've got time to improve the article. Michael! (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)