Talk:Joseph Jay Pastoriza/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: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review

I made a couple small tweaks in the LEAD but otherwise see no issues.
In fact I did some small copy editing throughout.
Feels like the shorter working hours belongs in with his business rather than with his Europe travels. Sources also seem to support some more information in that section.
Can you clarify In the end, Pastoriza developed a diminished Houston Plan; that is, a property tax scheme that still favored owners of improved lots over owners of unimproved lots.
The GA guidelines and supporting explanatory essays don't seem to mind this but I want to note that nearly all of the content of the article is really sourced to Davis. The other sources are really only used for a very small percentage of the overall text. I see no indication that this topic wasn't covered broadly (besides the minor comment above).
Given the length of the article and the early 20th century timeframe can a second picture be found to accompany it? For instance a picture of Houston from Pastoriza's time.
I saw you removed a couple redlinks just in advance of my review. There is absolutely nothing in GA guidelines to suggest that redlinks are prohibited; feel free to add them back in.
No other GA related issues (e.g. copyright, OR)

"Feels like shorter working hours..." I think moving that part would be appropriate.

"Clarify..." Yes, that is too compressed. I will need to re-read the main article and re-write that part of the narrative.

"Nearly all sourced to Davis..." This was a case of this being the superior article on the subject. I linked to some other sources in the "Other reading." One was Pastoriza's own explanation of his tax plan. I had thought that a few of the other articles were opinion pieces. It has been a few years, maybe it's time to read those again.

I want to make clear that this is there "for the record" and will not in anyway stop me from passing this as GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion on the visuals. I will look for a few photos. I should also use the photo for his shabby cabin. That must be in the public domain.cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your three concerns. I think the last of the three is the most important. If I have succeeded, then the reader will understand how the first Houston Plan met Pastoriza's objects while being popular with the voters, the plaintiffs in the end did not care if the tax system conformed with the state constitution, and the last plan failed to meet Pastoriza's objectives while not conforming to Texas law. Please let me know if I have more work to do. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Can Oldsanfelipe or other interested editor please let me know that they are interested in going through the GA review process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:: I am available. best, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: Few notes made above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this on hold for now so you can make changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: Thanks for the changes. I think the pictures add a lot and the article is clearer now. I'm going ahead and passing this. Congrats! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks for your help. The article is much better than it was a few days ago. Best, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2018 (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.