Talk:Francis Amasa Walker/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Generally well written, but some sentences are not crisp and contain too much detail so that the important material becomes lost in the whole.
   • e.g. "Although Walker continued Census-related activities by traveling to Washington every three weeks, he began to lecture on political economy as well as establishing a new general course of study (Course IX) emphasizing economics, history, law, English, and modern languages." (I use this as an example because under "Legacy" you mention Course IX, and each time I read that I have to use word find to locate where in the text Course IX is mentioned, giving no indication there that it will be a major focus of his legacy.)

   • I believe I've addressed this and the related issues of tangential commentary. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • Per WP:Lead, the lead should be an accurate summary of the article, including the main sections, and emphasizing the main points.

   • Still needs to be addressed. I welcome bold edits or suggested biographies of other multifaceted individuals. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   The sources are reliable

   c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects): Covers major aspect

   • Is there more information on Walker's specific contributions to the methods of conducting the census? Any info on the statistical methods they used?

   • I believe his contributions were namely the emphasis on professionalizing the conduct of the census takers and presentation of the information. I haven't encountered anything that definitively states what if any statistical methods he innovated. I suspect the use of "statistics" in that era may just connote "arithmetic of big numbers". Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • The article seems to cover major and minor events equally. Some of the information on MIT e.g. why he was chosen president, seem overly detailed and not directly related to Walker. Some of the extra info not related directly to Walker could be toned down or eliminated, so that the article would focus more clearly on Walker.
   • The "Legacy" section seems focused on MIT, particularly on Course IX, which is only touched on in the body of the article. There is too much detail on the buildings and course at MIT after he left, without sufficient evidence that he was directly responsible for these later changes. His contributions to the Census and statistics, for me the most interesting, are ignored. Apparently he had no other legacy from the various other aspects of his career.

   • I have removed some of the more tangential commentary. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • tagged with rationales

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold while problems in focus and an appropriately summary lead are sorted out. Also, if the sentence structure could be clarified so that the important information stands out, that would help.

   Walker sounds like an accomplished man with an interesting history. This information is in the article but it needs to stand out.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will address this in the days ahead-I've been traveling recently. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I find that you have immensely improved the article and taken care of the points above.Also, the suggestions on the talk page are good ones and benefited the article. It clearly meets the GA criteria.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Reliably sourced c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)