Talk:James Harvey Insole/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello again (Talk:George Insole/GA1),

I am looking forward to reviewing this article, too. I hope you don't mind, I will go ahead and make any minor tweaks, like commas and links, and give you the diff to look at so that you can ensure that you agree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and please do.  ~ RLO1729^💬 03:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro and infobox

• I added these links.

Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• It would be nice to have a sentence or two about his philanthropy and other activities (politician, consul to Spain (diplomat), etc.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.  ~ RLO1729^💬 04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Great job on the intro!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Early life

• I added a few commas and fixed one cite order issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, though I would like to revisit some of the additional commas in light of my reply in the George Insole review please.  ~ RLO1729^💬 04:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This section is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Coal producer

• I added commas, simplified a piped link, and combined single sentences into a paragraph here. The paragraph seems to work just fine without the orphan sentences.

Thanks, I felt the separate paragraphs each covered slightly different topics but the single paragraph is OK.

Also, as there seems to be a range of opinions on the ellipsis I would prefer to keep the space before (as in Oxford Style Guide here).  ~ RLO1729^💬

• Should "were" replace "was" in "However, the apparent contradiction in Insole's evidence given at the inquest and the later assizes was criticised." — since the evidence at the inquest and the assizes were criticized? Or, do you see it as one thing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I consider the subject of the sentence to be "evidence" (modified by the surrounding words) so I'd say the verb should be in the singular.  ~ RLO1729^💬 04:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok to both. This section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Gentrification

• Commas and cite order fixes are here.
• What do you think about starting a new section called "Philanthropy and personal life" with "His and his company's names were to be found in published lists of subscribers to good causes.[40][41]"? Just a thought.

Good idea. I've made Philanthropy a subsection of Gentrification as it was all connected but moved the personal info to the renamed Remarriage, death, and legacy section. Let me know if this works for you.  ~ RLO1729^💬 05:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That's great! This section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Other activities

• Cite order and one link tweak here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 05:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• There are cite order changes here.

Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• I would recommend adding the authors and/or newspapers for the quotes in the quote box for context.

I have added them in but find they distract from the flow of the narrative presented in the quotebox when one quote just follows another. Is there a way around this?  ~ RLO1729^💬

I added dashes and I think it looks better now. See what you think. This is absolutely not something that affects passing GA, but I think it's helpful for the readers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• There are a gazillion citations regarding the obituaries. Are any of those duplicate wording, or are they all unique obituaries?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are all unique and focus on different aspects of his life.  ~ RLO1729^💬 05:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Selected histories

• No comments–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

There are just some minor items stated above, plus the suggestion to add a few sentences information about his philanthropy and about some of the key roles in "Other activities".–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful review.  ~ RLO1729^💬 05:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article has passed as a GA article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)