Jump to content

Talk:Paul Rapsey Hodge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePaul Rapsey Hodge was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 27, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the English inventor Paul Rapsey Hodge built the first steam fire engine in the United States?
Current status: Delisted good article



GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Rapsey Hodge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll do my best! jp×g 23:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this one I will use the same scale as I do for all my reviews.

  • Green checkmarkY Checked and verified to be good, no issue.
  • Gray check markYg Not an applicable concern.
  • Red X symbolN This thing needs to be fixed or clarified.
  • Gray X symbolNg This thing has been fixed or clarified.
  • exclamation mark  This thing should be fixed, but I won't hold up a "pass" for it.
  • Blue question mark? Huh?

Preliminary notes

[edit]

Copyvio

[edit]

Stability / POV

[edit]
  • Green checkmarkY Article has been around for a few years, and nothing seems to have happened on it besides harmonious collaboration. No real POV stance is taken, let alone an undue one.

Media

[edit]
  • Green checkmarkY All media is public-domain and clearly illustrates topics related to the article subject.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

[edit]
  • Green checkmarkY Born, lived, designed, built, died. Not much more to talk about, is there?
  • exclamation mark  It feels like the membership of secret societies and death could be expanded on a bit more.

Prose / MoS

[edit]
  • exclamation mark  Lead is pretty short, I think it ought to mention what some of his inventions were and who used them.


  • Green checkmarkY Well-written and comprehensible.
  • Red X symbolN §Societies and §Death are both single-sentence sections. They should either be combined into a §Personal life or expanded.


  • exclamation mark  "devices for grinding wheat, regulating springs in railway cars,[8] machinery for processing felted cloth, machinery for brewing liquors, papermaking machinery, machinery that produced dinnerware, and improvements in machinery technology for the smelting of glass, metal, and porcelain. He also made improvements to machinery that made pigments for ink, gas lighting, and waterproofing fabrics": this could really stand to be broken out into individual sentences for each, if sources exist that can do so.

Ref check

[edit]
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 1 (Grace's Guide): Credible source, says everything that's cited to it. An interesting thing from this source that would be nice to have in the article: At one of the meetings of the IMechE in 1850, in discussions about the enormous problem of railway axle failures, Hodge made the very interesting suggestion that "To arrive at any true results as to the structure of iron it would be necessary to call in the aid of the microscope, to examine the fibrous and crystalline structure." Microscope analysis of the crystal structure of metals is a big-ass deal (and continues to be so today)!
  • exclamation mark  Ref 2 (Popular Science Monthly): Reliable source, checks out; it seems to me like the relevant passage is on page 490 though.


  • Green checkmarkY Ref 3 (Deseret Evening News): Reliable source, supports what's cited to it.
  • Gray check markYg Ref 4 (Lyons 1976, 71): Reliable source; could not verify this source using the Internet, but it isn't load-bearing (its only use is to support a statement referenced to other citations as well).
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 5 (Kane 1997, 272): Reliable source, and supports the claim cited to it. It's on page 273, not 272, so editing to be correct.
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 6 (King 2001, 4-5): Reliable source, and supports the claims cited to it.
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 7 (Santa Cruz Sentinel): Reliable source, and supports the claims cited to it.
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 8 (Proceedings): Two inventions had been blended into one, but I fixed this. Reliable source which now supports the claims being cited to it.
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 9 (Hodge 1840): Checks out.
  • Gray check markYg Ref 10 (White 1979, 280): Could not get this page from Google Books, but it's a reliable source and I will AGF.
  • Gray check markYg Ref 11 (White 1979, 491): Could not get this page from Google Books, but it's a reliable source and I will AGF.
  • Gray check markYg Ref 12 (White 1979, 281): Could not get this page from Google Books, but it's a reliable source and I will AGF.
  • Green checkmarkY Ref 13 (Hodge 1849): Checks out.

Conclusion

[edit]

@Doug Coldwell: A good article, a pleasure to read, and informative about a subject few would be capable of writing in this much detail about. Would be thrilled to pass after the repair of the two sections mentioned above. jp×g 20:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been fixed. Based! passing. jp×g 20:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]