Talk:Mary Florence Potts

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Florence Potts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 09:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Doing this review for the GAN October 2020 Backlog Drive. MWright96 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

• The birth and death places are missing from the infobox

Added.

Biography

• "Her husband passed away in 1901," - predeceased her

Changed.

• "and she became the co-owner of Potts Manufacturing Company with Oscero by 1910. Their company produced optical goods." - think the text in bold can be merged into the preceding sentence

Merged.

• "She passed away on June 24, 1922" - more formal; died

Changed.

• The Morning Post says she died in Baltimore and was buried at New Camden Cemetry

Added.

Inventions

• "The iron was designed with comfort and convenience in mind. It replaced the metal handle which was prone to getting hot with a cool wooden one that was more comfortable to hold." - I think merging these sentences will help matters here

Merged.

• "The iron shape was double-pointed for operating in both directions. It was made of hollow rather than solid metal." - these two sentences could be better off merged together

Merged.

• "that was a poor conductors" - conductor

Changed.

• "user like its predecessor with old-styled conventional solid metal did." - the word indiciated in bold isn't needed IMO

Removed, along with "old-styled" which felt redundant.

• "was that they didn't" - did not

Changed.

• "weighed around 5 pounds (2.3 kg) to 10 pounds (4.5 kg)" - weighed around 5 ti

I used "to" and I suppose that is what was intended.

• "prevent burning the fingers." - either burning of the fingers or burned fingers will be better than the current version

Went with the latter.

Legacy

• "The Pott's iron mechanism was used worldwide through the twentieth century" - 20th

Changed.

• "Her innovation of a removable handle mechanism of 1871" - in

Changed.

• "Gillette's application was a removable disposable blade and reinsertion of a sharp blade" - think the grammar in this portion of text can be improved here

Rewrote.

References

• Reference 3 is missing the access date

Added.

• Reference 10 is missing the work

Added.

• All mentions of newspapers.com should begin with a capital letter

Done.

• Reference 21 is missing the date it was published and the page number is A6

MWright96, I have added the date it was published. However, I am unsure about "A6" since Newspapers.com says it is just "Page 6". Let me know if that should be changed. Thank you for your review! — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@MWright96: All issues have been addresses. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Am putting the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair: & @Doug Coldwell: Now promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

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)