Jump to content

Talk:John Wilson Bengough/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Lead

[edit]
  • 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".

Early life (1851–73)

[edit]
  • "politically active: advocated": Perhaps "politically active: he advocated".
  • 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.
  • "at some time": Do you mean "at some point in time" or "at some point"? The adjective-adverb "some time" implies "a long period".
  • "had run a shop": Perhaps "ran a shop", as that sentence isn't expressing past perfect.
  • We have a fact discrepancy 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).
  • Please place a comma after all your introductory phrases. I have fixed the missing ones that I found.
    • I'm not going to raise a stink about this, but this is something I definitely strongly disagree with. There's nothing to be gained by adding a comma to a sentence like "In 1813 she left for Beaver Dams."—no ambiguity, no difference in tone when read aloud. Once upon a time relative clauses were also set off by commas, which looks positively silly today: "I think, that you should take a look at this guy, who looks like Charlie Chaplin." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have capitalized the "T" in this block quote: "The legitimate forces ..." This is acceptable and preferred by the MoS.

Grip (1873–94)

[edit]
  • Please deal with and remove the previous reviewer's HTML comments scattered throughout the article (search for "<!--"). Be open-minded; they may make good points. Or not.
    • But who is right?—impossible to know, which is why both stories are given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did this effect his business life, and the other way around, plus, this needs to be expanded.: the sources are silent, and we can't assume that it had any sort of effect on his business life or vice versa. His brother doesn't even mention her in his Life and Work of J. W. Bengough, Canada's Cartoonist. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did people negatively see him and his views:
    • As of 2015, how did he effect canada:
    • The following comment is also still in the article; it is a commented out unsourced sentence that has been in the article since 2005: The Art Gallery of Ontario presented an exhibition of Bengough's drawings in 1969.
    • And of course, you just commented out the Punch in Canada file.
  • "Of his only printed cartoons": I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this phrase. And does it need a hyphen? I just added the comma at the end of it.
  • "[His] was to found the": Is this correct structure? Even "[His endeavor] was to found the" doesn't seem to work. I think "[He] was to found the" or "[His] was the" is what you're looking for.
  • Do you think the nota bene mark should come after the footnote, i.e. [25][b], instead of before? In the past, I've ensured mine do that, and you did that once here, but not the other two times. It seems better coming after, and it seems it would be best to be consistent, but I'm not sure about an actual style rule.
  • I've changed the punctuation of the quote "impartial, always and on all subjects" to "impartial, always, and on all subjects", as the words "always and" don't work without punctuation. Again, it is okay to touch a quote's formatting (but not wording of course). Feel free to debate.
  • Change "and lend credibility"→"and lent credibility"
  • Change "The first of was Jester"→"The first of which was Jester"
  • Change "He impressed audiences ability to capture the likeness of audiences members"→"He impressed audiences with his ability to capture the likeness of audiences members" Was none of this copy edited?
  • Bengough's "taste for satire": This is the first time the term is used; it's not even used in the lead. I'm guessing you would rather introduce the term much, much earlier; both in the lead and then as soon as appropriately possible in the body, with a link to the satire article in both.
    • Okay, I've thrown in "satirical" a couple times—I assumed "political cartoons" implied "satirical". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bravo, much better, and I hope you agree. Do you think they should be linked to the satire article? I was actually wondering that myself on an article I wrote (that you reviewed) that used that word. I know, it's a toss up, as we wonder whether or not it is an extremely common term. I finally decided it was so relevant to the subject that I went ahead and linked it in the one I wrote. If you agree with that, then go ahead and link it here. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was anti-imperialist, and-capitalist, and anti-militarist.": One too many "and". Oh wait, that first one is a typo. Wouldn't you like to provide links to these? (The third term on Wikipedia leaves out the hyphen, but you wouldn't.)
  • "anti-French, anti-Catholic, pro-socialist": Same. (The third term on Wikipedia is of course just "socialism".)
  • "Under the new editorship readership" Surely you can see how a comma offsetting the introductory phrase would help matters? That one is followed with "fell until in July 1893 the magazine" I've already inserted the three missing commas.

Later life (1895–1923)

[edit]

Style

[edit]
  • "Bengough's cartooned ... in"→"Bengough cartooned ... in" or "Bengough's cartoons existed ... in"
  • "political cartoons" you have linked to "Editorial cartooning" which redirects to "Editorial cartoonist", but I think you would prefer changing it to link instead to "Editorial cartoon" (leave the plural "s" out of the link).
  • "He believed that humour should serve the interests of the state rather than merely to amuse." This sounds extremely important. It sounds like this (and the chalk talks) just about sums up the man and his work. I wish this could be accentuated somehow, perhaps state this same sentence in the lead. If it is stated this way in the sources in the form of a quote, you could consider putting it in a quote box. I'm glad it's in the second sentence of this section, but it's in the last half of it; the first half would be even better.
  • "which George Ramsay Cook "'sometimes sophomoric'": I'll bet you can see the error.
  • "As typical of political cartoons of the time," Hey! You put in the comma! Nice!
  • "Bengough's aimed less at laughter than at social satire" further down is more of the same important summing up of the man. It doesn't need the "'s".
  • "Bengough delivered humorous anecdotes, sand, and made impressions" In the sand he delivered, right? Ha ha.

Politics

[edit]
  • "to ask with favours": Do you mean "to ask for favours"?
  • "targets were ... aimed at Macdonald ... but his criticisms aimed at Liberals as well": Add a matching "were"; that is: you may want to change last half to "were aimed at Liberals as well"
  • Thank-you for spelling it "Québécois" instead of the Wikipedia article's English "Quebecers or Quebeckers". (And I guess we're still waiting for "that day".)
  • "Canada ... more open to integration than the US": Are you sure that's accurate? Than the US? That can't be accurate. (Joke.)
  • " interpreter of current event": Do you mean "events"?
  • "in contracts to ... cartoonists as Henri Julien and Sam Hunter": We don't know who those gents are and they're apparently not notable, so this falls flat, but I suppose this is still encyclopedic.
  • "one of the most interesting sources for the social history of Ontario in the latter nineteenth century": A possible quote box if you are interested.
  • "Library in Hamilton, Ontario, holds the": I removed the incorrectly placed comma between the subject and the verb. I must say, the disparity between your off-the-charts understanding of English grammar and your poor understanding of English comma placement is odd. And yet the rest of your punctuation is as stellar as your writing. You might want to work on that. I know this is of small importance compared to everything you are doing right, but still. You know what I mean.

Errata

[edit]
  • Seeing the portrait of the handsome young Bengough jarred me into sheepishly realizing I had pictured the elderly Bengough of the Infobox throughout the reading of the entire article. Maybe to prevent this from happening to anyone else, you could give the reader a clue in the early part of the article that he is a young man at that point, for example, providing his age when he started the magazine (especially if that is provided in the sources, although you could calculate it; I don't think doing math counts as original research). Or move the portrait, but it looks so good right here.
  • "unpublished script for which exists, for which": Not sure what is meant by the awkward "for which exists".

Closing comments

[edit]

Absolutely stellar research work and writing ability. An easy GA after these relatively minor issues are resolved. I'm fine with what you have already resolved. Great job. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merci bien—I believe I've hit all the bullets. Let me know if I've missed anything or if there are any issues with my responses. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for action on three or four points above. Once you've seen to those, we can wrap this up. Prhartcom (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All okay. Congratulations on another GA. Prhartcom (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wilson_Bengough/GA2&oldid=711637137"