Talk:Josiah Willard Gibbs/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I'll be taking the review.
Initial comments
[edit]- Lead seems good
- There's an inline PDF. This should be avoided, using a reference or note if necessary.
- I've removed the offending link. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- In general the references badly need more information. Consider using the {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} templates or use them as a guide to the sort of thing you need to include in a reference. This is a priority to ensure proper verifiability.
- Most of the references to books and articles do use the citation templates and give full bibliographical info. The issue is only with links to webpages like this one, which lack an author, date of publication, etc. I will try to use the cite web template on them consistently. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 43–48, for example, need an access/retrieval date; one should eb "Chicago"; another has a date; Rutgers has a department. That sort of thing.
- I've gone ahead and applied the "Cite web" template to the websites used in the refs. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- 43–48, for example, need an access/retrieval date; one should eb "Chicago"; another has a date; Rutgers has a department. That sort of thing.
- Most of the references to books and articles do use the citation templates and give full bibliographical info. The issue is only with links to webpages like this one, which lack an author, date of publication, etc. I will try to use the cite web template on them consistently. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why is #43 a reliable source?
- The webpage linked to is mostly just a collection of uncontroversial info. on the Gibbs stamp, with references to reliable sources. I'm not sure whether our policy should be to exclude it because the hmolpedia website in general might be considered suspect. I can leave this decision to you. In any case, this reference can be deleted without any significant loss to the article. I had included it because I was trying to document the fact that the Gibbs stamp was sufficiently notable on its own to justify a fair-use of the corresponding image, but the editors still ended up removing the image because it seems to be the accepted (though, I think, unwritten) policy to allow fair-use images of stamps only in philatelic articles. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have #42, is #43 necessary?
- We could do without it. I kind of like it, though, because it gives a nice illustration of the stamp (which is especially useful now that the free-use illustration on Wikipedia has been deleted) and a good list of references. I leave it to you whether it should be removed or not. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have #42, is #43 necessary?
- The webpage linked to is mostly just a collection of uncontroversial info. on the Gibbs stamp, with references to reliable sources. I'm not sure whether our policy should be to exclude it because the hmolpedia website in general might be considered suspect. I can leave this decision to you. In any case, this reference can be deleted without any significant loss to the article. I had included it because I was trying to document the fact that the Gibbs stamp was sufficiently notable on its own to justify a fair-use of the corresponding image, but the editors still ended up removing the image because it seems to be the accepted (though, I think, unwritten) policy to allow fair-use images of stamps only in philatelic articles. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Whilst I appreciate the challenge you've undertaken with this article, something for which you should be praised, I have indicated many places where I would expect to find citations that aren't present (about a dozen). This is a serious problem and it needs to be resolved; had the tags been present it would have been grounds for a quickfail but since I've started I'll go on. The article is on hold for seven days for this reason. I have some concerns about the coverage but these can be seen to (after some further consideration on my part as well) after. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've provided all the citations that you flagged as needed. For some of the personal info., I referenced the biography by Muriel Rukeyser, which I read recently but need to get from the library again in order to provide page numbers. Otherwise I think we can go ahead and discuss your concerns about the coverage. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've now checked Rukeyser's bio. and added the page numbers as needed. I've also added the other refs. you requested, plus a few others. Dirac66 has removed the ref. to Hmolpedia that you were concerned about. - Eb.hoop (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The article has come on a long way under the review; I've fixed the image licensing for you and I am passing the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)