Talk:Ronald Smelser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• It is possible that I have the wrong end of the stick, but the details I can find on Folly's 2010 article in History are slightly different from those you give.

You're probably right; I'm seeing "volume 95, issue 320" here: [1], so I changed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• A minor point, "the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht": the MoS suggests avoiding slashes. Would it be possible to reword to avoid this?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "contains biographical sketches of the thirty leading members of the SS". Did you mean to include "the", or would the phrase be more accurate without it?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Smelser established the annual Holocaust "Days of Remembrance" programming at the University of Utah". 'Programme'?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Optional point. "high school aged children". I consider myself an educated person but I honestly don't know what age range this is. (And I used to work in education.) I realise that Smelser was probably aiming at an American audience, but it may be useful to rephrase, or bracket an explanation, to make the meaning more accessible.

Changed to "teenagers" for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point. "explaining their impact on the popular culture." Is "the" necessary?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point. "The Foreign Affairs magazine called the book" Again I don't think that a definite article is necessary.(The one introducing the sentence.)

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point. "from the popular history writers and the World War II enthusiasts." Again, IMO, the article would be the better for losing the two definite articles.

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A fine article. Really good work. Nice to see these sort of "back room workers" getting the credit they deserve. (Especially stalwarts like Smelser; but that's POV.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. A fine article there. Good to see. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed