Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell

Losh, Wilson and Bell has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 31, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Losh, Wilson and Bell appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 19th-century alkali works of Losh, Wilson and Bell was the first in England to use the Leblanc process to make soda ash?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Losh, Wilson and Bell.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Looked at article edit history going back over one year. No issues there.
Inspected article talk page edit history and present version of article talk page. No outstanding problems noticed.

— Cirt (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

NOTE: Please respond, below entire Image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

~~File:High Level Bridge - Newcastle - circa 1852.jpg = Please format with Commons:Template:Information.~~ Y
~~File:Isaac Lowthian Bell - britischer Industrieller.jpg = missing date field.~~ Y
~~File:Bell Ironworks at Port Clarence Teesside watercolour by John Bell (1814-1886).jpg = Template without parameter, missing parameter in licensing section.~~ Y
~~File:Cornish beam engine, Springhead - geograph.org.uk - 716183.jpg~~ = image checks out okay. Y
~~File:Bell Brothers Ironworks at Port Clarence - Albert Goodwin (1845-1932).jpg = image from Flickr, should have a Flickrreview done at Commons.~~ Y

Please work on addressing these relatively easy issues, above.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Level - template added
Isaac - date field filled
Bell Ironworks - param added
---
Bell bros Ironworks - tagged as requested, but UK artist died 1932 so image is PD (not sure if bot can spot that, not a normal Flickr situation probably)

Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Chiswick Chap! As for the Flickr image source, you may have to manually actually ask a Flickrreviewer at Wikimedia Commons to have a look themselves at the image page, instead of a bot. I'd suggest leaving neutrally worded requests for help at Commons, at a few centrally located notice pages, such as Help, Village Pump over there, etc. — Cirt (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This was since reviewed on Commons. Image review completed. Next up, rest of GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 31, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good throughout. A bit choppy at times, but that is something that could be addressed in the future through both the peer review process and putting in a request for copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects. However, there appear to be several sections that could be expanded upon. Lots of one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs and short subsections. Things that could be drilled down and focused on for expansion before and/or during a Peer Review.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here, covered in neutral wording and matter of fact tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Passes here, per above review notes.

6. Images?: Passes here, per above review notes.

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I'll do some copy editing for smoothness! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]