Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krisgabwoosh ( talk · contribs) 07:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Result: Passed. Congratulations! Your article meets all the criteria to be included as a Good Article. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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); [2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Multiple prose issues, specifically the use of "he" where surname is more clear. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Lead can be longer and certain phrasing can be changed. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) List of sources is adequate. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Many large citations can be divided into individual page citations. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No origianl reserach. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No detectible plagiarism. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Main aspects are addressed. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Does not go into unnecessary detail but could be more linear. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No neutrality issues. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No substantial edit warring. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are Creative Commons. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The caption could be expanded on. Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass Passed. Article meets all GA criteria.

Discussion

General
Infobox
Lead
Family and education
  • Krisgabwoosh, the issue I'm having with this, while I try and work it out, is that the suggested use is with a Notes section with a reflist template, and references placed manually in the reference section. That doesn't work with the reference style I've been using, as it will move all the references to the notes section, which is undesirable. I have the page ranges already for both of those books, one being fourteen pages, and the other seven. It might be easier to just use named references for each specific page information is found on? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Combining both regular references and harvard citations into the same reflist is fine and doesn't preclude the article from being granted GA status. (Take the article " Germán Busch" for example.) It's preferable for direct claims to cite a specific pages, especially when the text's page range is quite large. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He moved there with McGough, per the sourcing I found. "went to Plainsfield, N.J., with Commodore W. M. McGough, by whom he was educated." I also don't know if he was a US Navy Commodore, or that was a title as a merchant marine, or everyone just called him "Commodore" because he wore a jaunty hat. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Good point, maybe just add the Commodore title to what's already in the text. At the very least, it gives a slight hint at who he was beyond just some guy Lawson moved with. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There's not a ton of detail in the source, Lawson kept current with social issues by attending, from 1901 to 1905, a series of special lectures as a member of the American Academy of Political and Social Science at the University of Pennsylvania I've added back social issues to the prose, although I'm slightly concerned about close paraphrasing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Career
Activism and politics
  • Only "inchoate and disparate, pointing to the still substantially unsettled status of strategic choices for a racial justice campaign for the new century" is her quote. The other quotes are from Lawson's book describing the conference. The two quotes I chose to provide the counterpoint to Carle's description come from both Hill and Carle.
  • Hill - With regard to solving the race problem per se, the Conference unequivocally found that: "As solutions to the race problem we regard colonization, expatriation and segregation as unworthy of further consideration"
  • Carle - The participants largely agreed on some basic starting points, including that "As solutions to the race problem we regard colonization, expatriation and segregation as unworthy of further consideration" and "[we] have abiding faith in the principles of human rights established in the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution"
  • I wrote it this way to provide the context that although there were widely differing views and ideas, and the conference didn't accomplish much in the way of setting a grand strategy, there was broad agreement on some basics. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I see. It's still quite confusing, as it appears the second quote is an extension of the first. It needs to be better differentiated or perhaps the key information in the second sentence could be paraphrased without directly quoting. It's also not quite clear what "for the new century" exactly means. I assume Carle is referring to the 20th century. Perhaps replacing it with [in the 20th century] would make it clearer, though this is optional. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The section is currently divided, broadly, into four paragraphs organized by topic. The first is his role in politics and law, the second is his sociological work, the third is his work highlighting progress since emancipation, and the celebration of emancipation, and the last is some of the other causes he supported which had significantly less coverage in RS, as well as a quick rundown of his works which were noteworthy enough to be included in RS.
  • When writing this I was up in the air about going chronologically, or by topic, and settled on breaking it up by topic, with each paragraph proceeding chronologically. Does that better explain why that paragraph starts at 1895? I thought it would break the flow of prose if I cut in halfway through the prose on the Afro-American council to mention that he was the president of the local board of commissioners for a fair.
  • I'm certainly open to adjusting this, however. The rest of the copy edits from this section are, I believe, complete. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In that case, perhaps adding section headers would help clarify things. Alternatively, as there is only one paragraph in each section, better transitions could be added to clarify that it's moving to a different topic and what that topic is. At the moment, it just appears jumbled. I assume the first paragraph is about his political career and the second is activism, but the third and fourth paragraphs just feel miscellaneous. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
 Done Everything here has been addressed. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Death
 Done Issues here have been corrected. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Jesse_Lawson/GA1&oldid=1092504098"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krisgabwoosh ( talk · contribs) 07:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Result: Passed. Congratulations! Your article meets all the criteria to be included as a Good Article. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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); [2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Multiple prose issues, specifically the use of "he" where surname is more clear. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Lead can be longer and certain phrasing can be changed. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) List of sources is adequate. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Many large citations can be divided into individual page citations. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No origianl reserach. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No detectible plagiarism. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Main aspects are addressed. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Does not go into unnecessary detail but could be more linear. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No neutrality issues. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No substantial edit warring. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are Creative Commons. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The caption could be expanded on. Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass Passed. Article meets all GA criteria.

Discussion

General
Infobox
Lead
Family and education
  • Krisgabwoosh, the issue I'm having with this, while I try and work it out, is that the suggested use is with a Notes section with a reflist template, and references placed manually in the reference section. That doesn't work with the reference style I've been using, as it will move all the references to the notes section, which is undesirable. I have the page ranges already for both of those books, one being fourteen pages, and the other seven. It might be easier to just use named references for each specific page information is found on? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Combining both regular references and harvard citations into the same reflist is fine and doesn't preclude the article from being granted GA status. (Take the article " Germán Busch" for example.) It's preferable for direct claims to cite a specific pages, especially when the text's page range is quite large. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He moved there with McGough, per the sourcing I found. "went to Plainsfield, N.J., with Commodore W. M. McGough, by whom he was educated." I also don't know if he was a US Navy Commodore, or that was a title as a merchant marine, or everyone just called him "Commodore" because he wore a jaunty hat. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Good point, maybe just add the Commodore title to what's already in the text. At the very least, it gives a slight hint at who he was beyond just some guy Lawson moved with. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There's not a ton of detail in the source, Lawson kept current with social issues by attending, from 1901 to 1905, a series of special lectures as a member of the American Academy of Political and Social Science at the University of Pennsylvania I've added back social issues to the prose, although I'm slightly concerned about close paraphrasing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Career
Activism and politics
  • Only "inchoate and disparate, pointing to the still substantially unsettled status of strategic choices for a racial justice campaign for the new century" is her quote. The other quotes are from Lawson's book describing the conference. The two quotes I chose to provide the counterpoint to Carle's description come from both Hill and Carle.
  • Hill - With regard to solving the race problem per se, the Conference unequivocally found that: "As solutions to the race problem we regard colonization, expatriation and segregation as unworthy of further consideration"
  • Carle - The participants largely agreed on some basic starting points, including that "As solutions to the race problem we regard colonization, expatriation and segregation as unworthy of further consideration" and "[we] have abiding faith in the principles of human rights established in the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution"
  • I wrote it this way to provide the context that although there were widely differing views and ideas, and the conference didn't accomplish much in the way of setting a grand strategy, there was broad agreement on some basics. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I see. It's still quite confusing, as it appears the second quote is an extension of the first. It needs to be better differentiated or perhaps the key information in the second sentence could be paraphrased without directly quoting. It's also not quite clear what "for the new century" exactly means. I assume Carle is referring to the 20th century. Perhaps replacing it with [in the 20th century] would make it clearer, though this is optional. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The section is currently divided, broadly, into four paragraphs organized by topic. The first is his role in politics and law, the second is his sociological work, the third is his work highlighting progress since emancipation, and the celebration of emancipation, and the last is some of the other causes he supported which had significantly less coverage in RS, as well as a quick rundown of his works which were noteworthy enough to be included in RS.
  • When writing this I was up in the air about going chronologically, or by topic, and settled on breaking it up by topic, with each paragraph proceeding chronologically. Does that better explain why that paragraph starts at 1895? I thought it would break the flow of prose if I cut in halfway through the prose on the Afro-American council to mention that he was the president of the local board of commissioners for a fair.
  • I'm certainly open to adjusting this, however. The rest of the copy edits from this section are, I believe, complete. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In that case, perhaps adding section headers would help clarify things. Alternatively, as there is only one paragraph in each section, better transitions could be added to clarify that it's moving to a different topic and what that topic is. At the moment, it just appears jumbled. I assume the first paragraph is about his political career and the second is activism, but the third and fourth paragraphs just feel miscellaneous. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
 Done Everything here has been addressed. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Death
 Done Issues here have been corrected. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Jesse_Lawson/GA1&oldid=1092504098"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE