Talk:Alexander S. Wolcott/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below.SirGallantThe4th (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SirGallantThe4th: All issues have been addressed. A thorough copy-edit has been done to the article. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still spot a number of grammatical errors throughout the submission, and I am hesitant to pass it until they are fixed. I can do another copyedit of the article tomorrow, after which it will be ready to pass. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article and have made edits to fix grammar and punctuation errors, re-worded overly simplistic sentences, added wikilinks wherever necessary, and removed redundancies or irrelevant information. In particular, a large portion of the "personal life and legacy" section was excised, as much of the information there was either redundant or bore little relevance to the subject.

Please thoroughly check the revised article to ensure that no crucial information was lost during this copyedit process. Once I get a confirmation, I will go ahead and pass the article. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SirGallantThe4th: I have looked over your edits. Yes, they are good as far as I am concerned. Thanks for the improvements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.	There are a number of glaring grammar/punctuation mistakes. For instance, "At the time of celebration the MacMillan company of New York published a book titled Photography and American Scene — Social History 1839-1889" needs a full stop and commas to denote appositive phrases. Same goes for sentences like "Wolcott with Johnson continued to improve their photography techniques.", "Dr. Taft gives the honor of the first successful portrait of a person to Wolcott who took a daguerreotype of his partner John Johnson on October 7 1839.", etc. There are a several run-on sentences here and there as well, such as "The date marks the first time a newspaper advertisement (Sun Drawn Miniatures) was published for a camera taking of a professional picture and it cost $3 ($81.00 in 2021)." and "By June, Wolcott had opened a branch in Washington D.C. which was operated by John G. Stevenson." The whole article needs a lot more commas. The current subject of the discussion seems to change rather abruptly, which is especially noticeable in the middle of a paragraph. For instance, the Daguerreian Parlor is brought up immediately after discussion of where Wolcott resided -- this transition felt very abrupt. I was so confused when I first read this that I went back up the article to see if I had missed its introduction. I only understood what the Parlor was after I read the sentence following it, but that explanation should be combined with the preceding sentence introducing it. A few paragraphs sound a little stilted or too simplistic. Many related sentences can be combined into one, for example: "They established a business relationship with their trade skills and organized the firm 'Wolcott and Johnson' at 52 First Street in New York City. The small business manufactured optical instruments and dental equipment." and "Wolcott made a photosensitive plate that used a chemical enhancer to develop the image. It was a solution of bromide and chloride and known in London as the Wolcott's mixture." It sort of reads like an article written for the Simple English Wikipedia, but the focus jumps back and forth constantly in the middle of paragraphs, which may confuse readers. The above comments have been resolved. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks fine.
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.	References look good.
	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).	Citations look good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main topic is addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There were a few times during my initial read-through where I believed some sentences were wholly unnecessary, but I suspect this may just be because of the way this article is currently written. (See comments in 1a)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article reads neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The last edit was made two months ago, so it looks fine.
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.	Images are tagged correctly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold. The article in its current state could potentially confuse readers with the manner its content is presented. I believe the article should be suitable for good article status if one gives it a thorough copyedit and fixes all the problems with readability. The above comments have been resolved. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]