![]() | Maria E. Beasley has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 3, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Maria E. Beasley appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article appears to have been written very subjectively, like a youngster's vague college essay. It would benefit from being written by a more competent author in order to give the article more credibility and weight. Maria Beasley, if a genunine entrepenurial inventer in her own right and not just a suffrogette pet icon, deserves a much better description of her life and endevours in her honour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.7.218 ( talk) 09:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
...and collapsible boats go back to before she was born. Qwirkle ( talk) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of websites claiming that Beasley's liferaft design was used on the Titanic, but I haven't been able to find a credible source for this claim. The Titanic apparently used lifeboats, not liferafts, and while there were four collapsible lifeboats, it's not clear how closely they were based on Beasley's design (and those four boats probably would not have been large enough to save "the hundreds of passengers" mentioned in Titanic/Beasley stories) [1]. I also did a scan of digitized American newspaper archives from 1910-2020, and Beasley is not mentioned once in connection with the Titanic. While Beasley did indeed patent significant improvements to the design of liferafts, I think the Titanic story is likely just an Internet rumour -- if I find a good source that supports this, I'll add it into the article. Alanna the Brave ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mujinga ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this on as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Looking forward to reading into Maria E. Beasley's life! Mujinga ( talk) 14:17, 3 January 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. | i used this as a worktable to check things, all comments made below table |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. 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. 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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
ok
ok
ok
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Alanna the Brave ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
ALT1 to [[[T:DYK/P2]] without image
![]() | Maria E. Beasley has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 3, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Maria E. Beasley appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article appears to have been written very subjectively, like a youngster's vague college essay. It would benefit from being written by a more competent author in order to give the article more credibility and weight. Maria Beasley, if a genunine entrepenurial inventer in her own right and not just a suffrogette pet icon, deserves a much better description of her life and endevours in her honour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.7.218 ( talk) 09:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
...and collapsible boats go back to before she was born. Qwirkle ( talk) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of websites claiming that Beasley's liferaft design was used on the Titanic, but I haven't been able to find a credible source for this claim. The Titanic apparently used lifeboats, not liferafts, and while there were four collapsible lifeboats, it's not clear how closely they were based on Beasley's design (and those four boats probably would not have been large enough to save "the hundreds of passengers" mentioned in Titanic/Beasley stories) [1]. I also did a scan of digitized American newspaper archives from 1910-2020, and Beasley is not mentioned once in connection with the Titanic. While Beasley did indeed patent significant improvements to the design of liferafts, I think the Titanic story is likely just an Internet rumour -- if I find a good source that supports this, I'll add it into the article. Alanna the Brave ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mujinga ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this on as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Looking forward to reading into Maria E. Beasley's life! Mujinga ( talk) 14:17, 3 January 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. | i used this as a worktable to check things, all comments made below table |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. 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. 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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
ok
ok
ok
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Alanna the Brave ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
ALT1 to [[[T:DYK/P2]] without image