Talk:Collyer Monument/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a compact article. I'll have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

The lead needs to be expanded to summarise the article in order to comply per WP:LEAD and meet the GA criteria. At the moment it is slightly too short and could mention more details - I'd recommend expanding it by at least another paragraph, if you can find that possible?

The lead mentions nothing about Samuel Collyer!

"in Mineral Spring Park at the corner of Mineral Spring Avenue and Main Street in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, USA" - seems a bit long, this could be compressed
"he took a job at the Pawtucket Post Office as a clerk and later a store clerk" - these two roles sound very similar
"He became a machinist" - mechanic?
Some lack of links in the first section. I think linking North Providence and Pawtucket would provide the reader with more access
The format of the plaque in the Design is out of line, is it meant to be like that?

References

No dead links, but I fear that the number of references in this article bring less of a neutral point of view. Nevertheless, I have read through all sources and they seem to comply per the GA criteria

On hold

A compact article with a chance of becoming GA. I mentioned everything I found above, so if all of them can be clarified then it will have a good chance of passing the GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did the fixes, but just to confirm. I expanded the lead to be almost twice as long. The location of the monument is given in full, but it is specific to the point needed I think. Though the role of a "clerk" is repetitive, it was the job role assigned and was not given the same title and flair as more modern roles. He was a machinist - I linked it to clarify. I also linked North Providence, Rhode Island. I added a sub-section for the inscription, the purpose of the formatting is to accurately and properly duplicate the original inscription as it appears on the plaque. The effect and measure is lost when it is in prose form. Once I get the Westerly granite article up, I will probably add more about the quality and type of stone used in the actual monument - this is not part of the NRHP listing and I doubt the surveyor cared much about the granite used in the actual production. It seems extremely (and I mean extremely) unlikely that I'd be able find its original quarry without personally examining it and the fragmentary records which exist. I am not sure why you are worried about a neutral point of view... "Contemporary accounts state that the funeral service and procession were the most elaborate of any in the town's history." is probably about a toned-down as you can get given the actual records. I have nothing more which I can use and I got lucky to even find the ones which I did. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for your response and the clarification regarding the sources; my mind can be put at ease now knowing that will not compromise this GAN. Anyway, this article does look good and is as comprehensive as it can be, so it will be good to expand this more if you ever plan on FACing this. Thanks for everything else ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.