Jump to content

Talk:Casper Shafer/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→GA Review: GA is passed
Line 123: Line 123:


====GA criteria====
====GA criteria====
#Well-written:
#Well-written: '''passed'''
##the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; '''seems okay'''
##the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; '''passed'''
##it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. '''no lead section, poor layout'''
##it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. '''passed'''
#Verifiable with no original research:
#Verifiable with no original research: '''passed'''
##it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; '''passed in general, one minor remark'''
##it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; '''passed'''
##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'''
##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'''
##it contains no original research. '''seems okay'''
##it contains no original research. '''passed'''
#Broad in its coverage:
#Broad in its coverage: '''passed'''
##it addresses the main aspects of the topic; '''could be expanded'''
##it addresses the main aspects of the topic; '''passed'''
##it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). '''passed'''
##it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). '''passed'''
#Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. '''seems okay'''
#Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. '''passed'''
#Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. '''passed'''
#Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. '''passed'''
#Illustrated, if possible, by images: '''could use more images'''
#Illustrated, if possible, by images: '''passed'''
##images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; '''passed'''
##images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; '''passed'''
##images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. '''passed'''
##images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. '''passed'''
Line 149: Line 149:


{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}

====Final conclusion====
'''Passed'''. This article is now a GA. {{done}} [[User:Michael!|Michael!]] ([[User talk:Michael!|talk]]) 11:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:15, 15 March 2013

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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

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

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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • People who searched for an article purposely wouldn't run away just because of the layout. However, the layout and first glance of an article are important for people who stumble upon the article (e.g. by using Special:Random). If it looks unattractive, they certainly won't read the article.Michael! (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • If I would have reviewed that article, I might have suggested to split it into sections as well. However, that article isn't relevant to determine if Casper Shafer is a GA.Michael! (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A separate, clear and short lead greatly improves any article. It gives an idea what this article is about if you never heard of this person. (The lead as it is is quite good.) Michael! (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty to split it into three subsections to show what I mean. Please have a look at it. The titles are work titles and should be changed to something better. It would be great if you could rewrite or expand the text where you think it appropriate.Michael! (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Although the use of [1]: p.135  isn't wrong, I prefer [2], 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "At sometime after ...": Don't you mean "At some time after ..." or "Sometime after ..." ?
  • "flatboat": perhaps change it to flatboat?
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • The first occurrences of "Royal Governor", "Rhine River" and "Rotterdam" might be wikilinked too, don't you think? The second occurrences of "Rotterdam" and "Burlington" could be unlinked.Michael! (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "typo" (in footnote 3): not wrong, but you might want to rephrase it.
  • Perhaps plain "mistake" would be better. Both "typo" and "typographical error" suggest the text is typed. In general, the text on a tombstone isn't typed, nor written, but engraved (is this the proper word?). Besides, it suggest the person who "typed" the text made an error, but it could also be possible that the person who ordered or dictated the text made a mistake - but this is speculation.Michael! (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, reading your third note carefully, it isn't clear to me if the sources directly state it is a typo, or if you concluded yourself it is a typo, because the sources inform you Shafer was still in Europe in 1731/didn't arrive before 1741. Michael! (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • That's perfectly fine to me. I'm glad there are so many contributors who are willing to spend their time to write articles, even about ignored and obscure topics. Nevertheless, if nobody ever reads an article, than the writer/editor seems to have wasted his time, which is pity. Michael! (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few more remarks: have a look at it
  • Wikilinks (mentioned above) The first occurrences of "Royal Governor", "Rhine River" and "Rotterdam" might be wikilinked too, don't you think? The second occurrences of "Rotterdam" and "Burlington" could be unlinked.Michael! (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you happy with the article as it is right now?
  • Do you want to change anything else?

Michael! (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation problem

Since it seems you've used Schaeffer and Johnson (1907): Memoirs and Reminiscences as your primary source, referencing to it twelve/thirteen times (more than all other sources combined), I did access it today via my university library. To my big surprise, there seem to be several mistakes. A few remarks:

  • "Casper Schafer" (the 18th C colonist where this article is about) is written as "Casper Schaeffer" (like his grandson, the author). I suppose you've got your reasons to use another naming convention than the one used by this book? On page 10 it is mentioned his name was written as "Shaver" in 1775, by the way.
  • The Rev'd. Casper Schaeffer MD, the author, had an affectation for adopting/reverting to what he deemed was the most "authentic" German form of the name. His grandfather was largely less-than-literate and his name is spelled Shever, Scheffer, Schafer, Shafer, Shaver, and other permutations in various original documents. His immigration records spell him three different ways. The most common spelling in local history books, the government-issued historic marker in front of his stonehouse, church records, deed records, refer to the grandfather (subject of the article) as Shafer. The Rev'd. Dr. Schaeffer's brother, the Rev'd. Joseph Shafer, spelled it Shafer as do most of the subject's children, grandchildren, and later descendants. The leader of the family organization, the late Arnold Shafer, preferred Shafer in his writings and research on the family because it was the most ubiquitous in the record and among the family. The same problem is with Casper's brother-in-law, John George Wintermute...Windemuth, Windemote, Wintermote, Wittermuth, etc., abound in the records.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for pagination, some of the blank pages and the title page are not numbered and the pagination is changed in other editions. There are three reprints (two hardcover, one softcover) after 1907. Are you using the original 1907 or a reprinted edition of it? I will conform the citations them to the original edition, per NYPL/archive.org at [1].--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I noticed that not all pages are numbered elsewhere, but that isn't the case here. Page 21 is numbered, but the next numbered page is 26. In between there are a blank page, the title page, another blank page, and then an unnumbered text page (the start of "Memoirs and reminiscences"), followed by page 26. Michael! (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll bring it into conformity with the 1907 original since it's available online for free and accessible. Unfortunately, I have all five editions in print and use all five editions (Schaeffer updated by Johnson, 1907; Schaeffer's first print in the 1850; and the three reprints), and while I don't have it, I've seen Schaeffer's original holographic manuscript. Ugh, mea culpa. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an "edit conflict", so it seems we're editing simultaneously. I didn't see your note at first. The version I'm using is a digital, full facsimile scan (loc.ark__13960_t6rx9gx3b.pdf), with the following information on the first page:

"Memoirs and reminiscences, together with sketches of the early history of Sussex county, New Jersey, Schaeffer, Casper, 1784-1857. [from old catalog] Hackensack, N.J., Priv. print., 1907. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t6rx9gx3b" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael! (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On another view of the orthography, as Shafer gets older, the spelling with -f seems to appear more frequently...this is likely due to his assimilation and better grasp of English in later life...evidenced by his associations with Condict, his English inscription on a German-style tombstone (in a largely German-language cemetery behind a now-gone German-language church), more English settlers in the Stillwater area (several who married into the family), v's in german are often transliterated as "f's" because the german v is pronounced as f (and w as v). But to argue that view without proper sources at this time would be counter to WP:NOR.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.Michael! (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wunderbar!Michael! (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation in footnote [3]: correct
  • First use of note 6: page 30 is correct, but page 22 is empty and 23 is a title page. Perhaps a typo?
  • Second use: correct
  • Third use: this isn't on page 9. On page 10 it is told he build those mills, but I could not find the production volume.
  • Fourth use: couldn't find the information on those pages; where are those African-American slaves, for instance?
  • Fifth and subsequent use: correct
  • Ninth use: couldn't find everything on page 11

 Done Schaeffer's "deposed" only tells half of the story. Added new source for the arrest at order of Provincial Congress.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tenth and subsequent use: correct

Michael! (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing the aforementioned issues. I checked most references again and I didn't notice any problems. The few references I couldn't check do I take for granted, in good faith.Michael! (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

  1. Well-written: passed
    1. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; passed
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. passed
  2. Verifiable with no original research: passed
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; passed
    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. passed
  3. Broad in its coverage: passed
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; passed
    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. passed
  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: passed
    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)[reply]

PS: Please don't get me wrong. My purpose is not to find grounds for denying a GA. I just want to improve an article, not only by providing straightforward suggestions, but also by raising questions, and, perhaps, making vague remarks. Every writer makes certain choices. Why do you write something like this and not in another way? Have you reread and thought about it at least twice? Can you justify the decisions you made? If you've good and clear reasons to do it the way you did, then I won't object. Sometimes a critical reviewer can help you and your text by asking annoying questions. Of course, you don't have to agree with me or change everything, but it is never wrong to think about some things you didn't think of before. Michael! (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since each of the suggestions aforesaid have been addressed, are there any other suggestions, or can we proceed accordingly?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'll probably pass this article as a GA soon. Right now, I'm checking a few of your references. Michael! (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now going to check the references again and will pass the article as a GA afterwards.Michael! (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Book I
  2. ^ Book I, p.135

Final conclusion

Passed. This article is now a GA.  Done Michael! (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casper_Shafer/GA1&oldid=544344972"