Talk:Joseph Widney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:25, 16 May 2013 (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.	good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: ok; layout: There are perhaps too many (rather short) sections, which would be better merged or grouped. Perhaps the real estate, LA, and California chunks belong in one chapter (could be subsections). Perhaps a broad 'campaigns and beliefs' section could encompass his environment, religion, and racial beliefs, again as subsections if desired. Family and later years could similarly be grouped. At the moment we have a staccato rattle of level 1 chapters rather than an intelligible flow. Done weasel: no problem; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
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.	The first book in the list of Books has no author so I guess this is Widney himself? It might be clearer to spell this out, or perhaps to move the title to a list of "Works" if you want to indicate it as one of his achievements.
	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).	no problem
	2c. it contains no original research.	no sign of it
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It seems so, and appears to be thoroughly researched.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	even coverage throughout
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	no sign of bias
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit-warring
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.	both images are tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be nice to find images of some more Widney properties but no issue for GA.
	7. Overall assessment.	Interesting article about a city worthy.

An infobox summarizing Widney's achievements is not required for GA but could be a good thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

in process

A number of sections are now given inclusive headers, reducing the choppiness, and the initial image is used for a pseudo-infobox as I did not find a template which made more sense than that. Refs will be fixed anon to make it easier for people. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Author of the first book listed is listed on appropriate sites as the publishing company. Now noted as "(author)". Collect (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)