Talk:Team of Rivals/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to review this article for GA status. I should be able to start writing the review later today or early tomorrow. PrairieKid (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your thoughts will be much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

First I'll give some initial thoughts, and later I'll pull out the rubric...

Initial Thoughts

Lead

• Very well-written. Makes reader more interested.

• Thanks!

• Could use a slightly longer summary.

• Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article this short is generally supposed to max out at two paragraphs; I feel like I may be pushing the upper limits as is. Is there a specific additional fact you'd like to me to add in, though?

?

Contents

• Again, very well-written
• Lists should use semi-colons (; not :) <--Not meant to be a smiley face

• My understanding is that you use a colon to set off a list rather than a semicolon, which requires a potentially stand-alone sentence on either side of it (except in the rare instance, as here, of dividing list items that already have commas in them). WP:MOS says: "A colon (:) informs the reader that what comes after it demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before, or is a list of items that has just been introduced. The items in such a list may be separated by commas; or, if they are more complex and perhaps themselves contain commas, the items should be separated by semicolons". (More examples here.)

• Lincoln was known for his senate debates with Douglass. Slightly different wording would be nice.

•  Done added a phrase here.

• Very good summary. Included all the important information, with a bit about the structure and the writing style.
• (Contradicting the 2nd comment...) There are a lot of ;'s later on. Separate thoughts into sentences and use commas. The abrupt change is nice occasionally, but not as often as it is used.

• Thanks for this catch! Semicolons are my greatest vice as a writer. Except for where they're in a quotation, or dividing up list items with commas, I've only left one semicolon, in the sentence "Lincoln also recruits Chase ally Edwin M. Stanton to replace Pennsylvania political boss Simon Cameron as Secretary of War; like Seward, Stanton comes to respect and support Lincoln." You're welcome to remove that one too, if you think it preferable.

N

Background

• This section should come first, before the summary.

•  Done

• I am still very happy with the writing style

Y

Response

• There may be too many quotes. I'm a little iffy with that, because each provides a good point. (It isn't just "NYTimes author said it was fantastic... Historian ___ said it was fantastic...") It is just a little bit of sensory overload.
• I liked the Obama-Lincoln comparison. Was insightful, well-cited and surprisingly not biased.

Y

Film

• Well-written
• That section should show the relationship between the book and the movie... Not just Goodwin and the movie or the movie alone, if that makes sense.

• I agree, especially since the movie only deals with five pages of the book. Let me dig up a source to that effect--should just take me a minute. Thanks for pointing this out.

• Okay, I lucked into a source that not discusses this but also summarizes other critics pointing this out. It's hard to go much beyond this, though, because Goodwin's role is a bit murky. It's clear she was an advisor, not clear how much she really wrote or added. Anyway, good catch, this was something that needed explicit mention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

?

So far, I am very happy with this article and I think it will only take a few minor tweaks to get it to GA level. Good work. Thank you to the nominator for the hard work already put in to the article. PrairieKid (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention, but meant to was the citations. The article is well cited and I had no problems with that. PrairieKid (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions above and your time in reviewing--both are much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your points, but happy to address any further issues you see. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rubric

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   It is VERY well written. My only problem is the film section...

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   As mentioned, the background section should be moved into the front. The lead could provide a slightly longer summary.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   yes sir Y

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   I went through and checked most of the sources that weren't books. They were all good.

   C. No original research:

   Well... you didn't cite the specific pages in the book of where you got the summary points... I guess I'll let it go.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Y

   B. Focused:

   Y

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Y

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Y

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Y

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   It could use another image of the men involved in the book, Stephen Douglass, or someone else involved. It's fine how it is for GA though.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'll put the article on hold for one week to make the minor changes. I would be surprised if it took that long, but I'll give the time anyway. Good work.

PrairieKid (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is good now. Thanks for all the hard work! Team of Rivals, welcome to GA.

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)