Talk:John H. Hill/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ProfessorDeYaffle (talk · contribs) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear and intriguing account of a life worth knowing about, with enough detail to inform properly without bombarding the reader with side-issues. That certainly makes for a good article in my view.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProfessorDeYaffle, thank you again for choosing to review this article for GA status. I look forward to working with you throughout this review process. Please let me know if you have any questions for me in the meantime, or if you require additional information. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProfessorDeYaffle, once again, thank you for performing this GA review and for your edits thus far. Because this article is written in American English, and to maintain consistency throughout the article, I modified practise and school teacher. Please let me know if you have any questions about this or need any other assistance for this GA review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I confess I was unaware that US English no longer distinguishes between practice and practise, so I've learned something there! I'm fairly confident that school-teacher should ideally be hyphenated in all variants of English, rather than collapsed to a compound term, but we probably don't need to argue that minor point here.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProfessorDeYaffle, thank you so much for addressing my comment regarding American English. Please let me know if you require any further assistance to complete this review. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProfessorDeYaffle, if you need any assistance with the GA review process, please see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. When reviewing articles, I usually use one of the templates like Template:GAList2 or Template:GATable. Thank you again for performing this review! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to editors above for the nudge to comment further! GA template completed as below.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Reads well with no significant trip-ups.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No obvious stylistic infractions.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

C. It contains no original research:
as far as I can ascertain.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Broad enough...

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
...while also focused enough.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Admirably neutral, I'd say.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Appears stable over a full month so far.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Adequate illustrations given the period.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Pictorial matter relevant.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It's well put-together and there's really no obvious reason to object. Give it the credit it's due.

ProfessorDeYaffle, thank you so much for your thorough and comprehensive review! In order to close out and finalize your review, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions for the final reviewer steps. Thanks again! — West Virginian (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProfessorDeYaffle, more specifically, please see Step 4 for final steps in passing an article. Thank you again for your review of this article! — West Virginian (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @West Virginian:, I'm here to look at either approving this or giving a few final tips after ProfessorDeYaffle, who missed a few criteria. Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I notice is that the lead is LONG - one of the longest of any article I've seen. It's stretching the limits of MOSLEAD, and should be significantly cut down because the article is relatively short.
There are two footnotes in the infobox - the second one (about where he was born) is fine, but the first one is in a banner and so is made smaller - ideally it should be removed from the infobox and just appear at the appropriate point in the article body.
The way the article is structured/segmented is strange. Early life and education can stay as one section, then maybe legal and military career, then career as an educator with subsections. I believe Legacy usually goes before personal life, too.

Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, thank you so much for your review, and for your additional comments and suggestions! I will address these as soon as possible! Thanks again! — West Virginian (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, thank you again for your review and guidance! I've addressed each of your suggestions in the infobox and text of the article. I slimmed down the lead, so please take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be removed. I really appreciate you taking the time to complete this review. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: Thanks for the work! Re. the lead, perhaps I should have specified more clearly, but this should be no longer than two paragraphs for an article this length. And two reasonably sized paragraphs - the second paragraph in the current is itself very long. Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginian, the relevant criterion about lead length is in a section of MOS:LEAD (listed as one of the manual of style sections included in the criteria under 1.B.) linked to directly as MOS:LEADLENGTH. Kingsif, thanks for finding the time to stop by and get this review moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif and BlueMoonset, thank you both again for your assistance in ensuring that this article meets all GA criteria. I am currently working on modifying the lead accordingly, and will notify you both once I have completed these edits. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, I just finished resizing the lead per my understanding of the MOS guidance on lead sections. Please take a look and let me know if there are any other opportunities for improvement. I really appreciate and value your time and expertise. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: I just ran the article through the copyvio detector and it looks fine - this should be good to pass, I think. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]