Talk:John Wilson Bengough/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TerribleTy27 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm TerribleTy, And I will be reviewing this article! I'll Update this review everyday, pointing things you can do etc. Then it's either pass or fail! TerribleTy27 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Okay, so far the citations check out, but it seems like you should get some citations in the introduction. Also, across some of the page, some detail is probably needed, I marked each area with a comment. Also, the grammar, prose, that kind of stuff, it needs to be improved, Also, it appears that this article 'glorifies' John Wilson Bengough, leaning to his side in most sections, picturing him as a super righteous hero, the article doesn't balance it with some of the negative effects that his articles caused, due to this, i'm putting the review on hold, until someone improves the article. TerribleTy27 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If by "introduction" you mean the lead, normally we leave that uncited except for particularly contoversial information; the lead normally acts as a summary of the body, where the citations are required (see WP:LEAD).
As to balance: could you give some examples? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (sorry for the long wait, some junk came up)Ok, as to the lead, I usually prefer more cites, but that's fine. In what I've seen, the article seems to mostly lean towards the positive feedback that he recieved, but what do people negatively see of him? TerribleTy27 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's certainly criticism in there: he's called a "a racist chauvinist bigot" and his poetry is "undistiguished". I suppose I'm just not seeing how the article "glorifies" him, so I could use some help seeing it. If it's there, perhaps I could reword it, because I don't think there's anything more in the sources I have in the way of significant negative criticism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - To me, It seems to be making him out as a great man who never made a negative impact on the country. But since your so sure, and i'm getting unsure. I'm asking for a second opinion. Ty out! TerribleTy27 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - TerribleTy27: I'm not saying I'm "so sure", I'm saying from my perspective as the one who wrote it, it's difficult to see what you're seeing without concrete examples. This is why we look for outside help. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prhartcom review

TerribleTy27, I am happy to offer a second opinion on this GAN review if you'd like. I have brought some comics articles to GA and FA. I'll just read the article tonight and then by tomorrow will return with suggestions to improve the article according to the GA criteria. If you have any specific questions for me, feel free to leave them below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

According to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, there are reasons to have inline citations in the lead, however those reasons do not apply to this article. It is correct in this article to have no citations in the lead. The reviewer should ensure that each fact mentioned in the lead is again mentioned in the body and cited there, but again, not cited in the lead.
Is "[He] toured chalk talks" a proper phrase? "[He] toured talks" wouldn't be. Perhaps add a word showing the the progressive aspect, something like "[He] toured giving chalk talks".
- Modified. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life (1851–73)

"politically active: advocated": Perhaps "politically active: he advocated".
- Yeeks. Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking "single tax" to the Georgism article: Acurate, however that article doesn't mention "single tax" in bold in the first sentence or paragraph of its lead, so I believe this qualifies as an WP:EASTEREGG and should be tweaked.
- I've gone with [[Georgism|Georgist single tax]], unless someone's got a more elegant wording. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"at some time": Do you mean "at some point in time" or "at some point"? The adjective-adverb "some time" implies "a long period".
- I've gone with "may have sometime sailed ships out of Port Whitby". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"had run a shop": Perhaps "ran a shop", as that sentence isn't expressing past perfect.
- The 1840s is in the past from the perspective of 1851, which is the time where the sentence takes place. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a fact discrepency between two articles: This one says Bengough worked with editor George Ham of the Whitby Gazette around 1865-1870, but the editor's own article says the name of the paper he edited at that time was the Whitby Chronicle. Please double-check your sources. If this article has it right, even though I know that this GA review shouldn't extend to other articles, I'll just say that it would be great if the name of the paper in the other article could be fixed (or the name fixed in this article, obviously, if the other one has it right).
- It appears the Chronicle (from 1857) and Gazette (from 1862) merged in 1912 as the Gazette and Chronicle, which may be the source of confusion in the sources. Working on figuring this out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ham was definitely [http://vitacollections.ca/whitbynews/2450742/page/2 the editor in 1870. The source is missing the issues for mid-1870, though, so it doesn't have The Murderer's Scalp. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Chronicle appears to have been published by a W. H. Higgins in 1870. I do see other sources that say Ham was the publisher of the Chronicle—perhaps at a different time? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please place a comma after all your introductory phrases. I have fixed the missing ones that I found.
I have capitalized the "T" in this block quote: "The legitimate forces ..." This is acceptable and preferred by the MoS.

Grip (1873–94)

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]