Talk:Cyril Colnik/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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 11:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry the last review did not work out - hopefully this one will be a lot smoother! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow review, I am dealing with covid at the moment and will return to this in the next few days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: any thoughts on the comment below (3a)? —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've made prose tweaks in accordance with my usual practice. If there are any you object to, let me know.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Find A Grave is not generally considered reliable; I'd prefer if the External Link to it was removed. Issue addressed, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Italicize newspaper and other publication titles in references. Not yet done (Capital Times). Conversely Milwaukee Art Museum should not be italicized. Issues addressed, pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some are a little obscure, but I don't see any reason to believe they are unreliable on this subject.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The note and some of the images (as well as the Wauwatosa Library reference, which is a primary source) suggest original research. Was his naturalization covered in a secondary source? If so, it should be referenced to that, not the primary-source document of his actual naturalization card. Issue addressed, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None found by Earwig or manual spot check
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This source mentions a major work at the Wisconsin Memorial Park which may be worth adding. The 2008 award may also be worth a mention. There is some interesting material here which could also be incorporated. Do you have access to Cyril Colnik: Man of Iron by Strekow? It seems to be by far the most lengthy source out there on Colnik (200 pages) and while I understand much of it is photos of his work, I wonder if there is additional detail that can be garnered from the book? @Bruxton: I am reluctant to pass this as a GA, given how short it is, when there's a possibly in-depth source out there that could be used to add detail and length to the article. Do you think you could get this book in the next week or two - perhaps through interlibrary loan?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use image is probably ok but I will double-check since I am not great with image copyright handling. Should be ok here. File:1900 Colnik Manufacturing Company ad.png has a vague and non-specific source. Where did the image actually come from? Was it scanned in from a publication in which the ad appeared? Or something else? Is there certainty that it was published in 1900? In addition, it appears to have been made by George Mann Niedecken, not an unknown author. Please fix and address this. File:1905 Cyril Colnik Manufacturing Company.png; was this image published, or is it unpublished? There are relevant tags you could add to an image that was never published (i.e. in some way sold/displayed for commercial or artistic use). Not yet addressed. What is the actual source of File:Cyril Colnik naturalization May 24, 1904.png? "U.S. Government documents" is extremely vague and more of a description than a source. Same for File:Cyril Colnik passport application May 25, 1905.jpg. Not yet addressed. Issues addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption for File:1905 Cyril Colnik Manufacturing Company.png could be improved. I suggest "Colnik (middle row, third from right) with his employees in 1905" Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ganesha811: I have done some work on the article. Regarding the 1905 photo I am unsure of the original publication. I have added to the other images.

@Bruxton: Thank you for your improvements. The image issues are not yet fully resolved. Take a look and also go through some of the comments above on breadth and new sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I have twice tried to add italics and links to the references, but it does not work for me. Or maybe I do not understand what to do. I will work on the other items. Bruxton (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I completed the items with the exception of italic titles in references. I erased images which were questioned. The passport and naturalization were research I did from ancestry. The advertisement is over 100 years old and in the public domaine because it is 2d art, and the artist George Mann Niedecken died in 1945. But I erased it as well. Also I do not have that book. I may purchase it later. Bruxton (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok! I'll take care of the italicization. I think you should restore the Niedecken image - no need to get rid of it, just edit its metadata on commons to be more accurate and make sure it's tagged with the appropriate copyright tag. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thanks, I added an additional license to it. I will add it back, and thanks for the italic edit. I was flummoxed. Bruxton (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I will see what i can do. I would have purchased the book by now but it was so pricey and no kindle version exists. Bruxton (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely don't spend $200 to satisfy me! If you can get it free from a library or some other way, great! If not, just let me know and we can reconsider in that light. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: any updates, or should we consider this the end of the review? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Hey thanks for the ping. I did not make an effort to locate the book this week. I can try tomorrow perhaps. Bruxton (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I have located a copy near me. I shall get there this afternoon. Bruxton (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Great! Looking forward to hearing if it has anything useful for the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Hi, I got the book and it had details about his parents, early life, career, apprenticeships and personal life. It was a good thing to get for the article because it filled out the areas which were missing bits. Let me know what you think now that it has been added. Bruxton (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Great news! I've made some prose tweaks. Is there more information to add or are you finished expanding the article? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thanks, I think that is all. I am just going to be uploading more photos for the commons category. Bruxton (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In that case, this article now passes GA! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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.