Jump to content

Talk:Casper Shafer/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Casper Shafer

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ColonelHenry (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 13 March 2013 (→A few remarks: please correct: restoring one comment accidently removed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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.

  • 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. while many editors use short citations, I do not find them practical and prefer {{rp}} template. This difference of opinion/diverging preferences is not grounds for denying a GA nomination. --24.115.67.94 (talk) 14:59, 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.
  • "At sometime after ...": Don't you mean "At some time after ..." or "Sometime after ..." ?
  • Jonathan Hampton: page doesn't exist.
  • "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.
  • "typo" (in footnote 3): not wrong, but you might want to rephrase it.
  • 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]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Book I
  2. ^ Book I, p.135
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casper_Shafer/GA1&oldid=543855608"