Talk:Henry Ward Beecher/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Beginning first read through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is clearly of GA standard, and I don't propose to prolong the review. But before I observe the formalities I offer a few small points that you are welcome to accept or reject, as you think best.

• Lead
  • The hatnote mentions that HWB was American, but the text of the lead itself doesn't, and I think it should.
• Early life
  • You give Thomas K Beecher his "Reverend" but in the lead you haven't done the same for Lynam Beecher (or HWB himself, for that matter). I'd be inclined to omit it for Thomas K, too, particularly as he has a WP article,
  • "Mt. Pleasant Classical Institution" – do the sources really say "Mt" rather than "Mount"? Looks rather odd.
• Early ministry
  • "had been hired as a minister" – to an English eye it looks a bit odd to say "hire" a minister. I wonder if "had been offered a post as a minister" might read more naturally?
  • "he also led a successful revival" – of what, precisely?
• Personal life
  • "Beecher wed Eunice Bullard in 1837" – perhaps this is one of those US-v-UK usage things, but to an English eye "wed" is used only in tabloid newspapers rather than by real people, who say "married".
• Images
  • The picture of Beecher in what appears to be military uniform could do with a more detailed caption than just his name. I see the image is called File:Henry Ward Beecher Chaplain.jpg. Was he a chaplain to the Unionist forces in the civil war? Perhaps even worth mentioning in the text, if so.
    • It seems that he was made the honorary chaplain of a New York national guard regiment in 1878 [1]; my guess is that this was the year the photo was taken. I can't immediately find further detail on the photo, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Those few insignificant points are all I can find to quibble about. If you are thinking of taking the article on to FAC I think you need to get at least one more major biographical source: at present you rely very heavily on Applegate. Fine for GA, but FA reviewers will expect a wider range of sources.

Now, to cut the ribbon:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed this article. Beecher is one of those names one vaguely knows without quite knowing why. And now I do. Out of interest I looked out his obituary in our leading British paper, The Times, which said of him, "one of the ablest and most popular of United States citizens – a man in whom were embodied many of the virtues and some of the failings of the national character", which chimes pretty well with your Applegate peroration at ref 64. I enjoyed spending a few hours in Beecher's company courtesy of this fine article. – Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Tim, for the suggestions and kind comments. I'll be implementing the former and appreciating the latter. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)