Talk:Red Cross stove/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This article has only one section, "history". The first paragraph of this section is a mishmash of different factoids crammed together and badly sourced, so badly written that it made me wonder whether it was generated by software that read and tried to digest sources rather than by an actual person. First we have the stove manufactured by a certain company, then we have a claim that their catalog featured a red cross sourced to an article about a calendar (not catalog), then we have that "they" (the red-cross catalogs?) came as two different types of stove sourced only to ebay, then "it" (the oil burners?) "eventually" went out of business in 1930 (as opposed to going out of business in some other way?), then (all in the same paragraph) we start going through the history of the company again from its foundation, among which we learn that the stove was actually manufactured earlier by a different company. Then after talking about two different companies we have that "the company" prospered (which one?) at an unspecified time.
The first footnote, giving a date range for manufacture of this stove, goes to p. 54 of "Rochester's Leaders and Their Legacies", which actually has two captioned photos of Rochester trolley cars. The name of the company, included in the same supposedly-sourced sentence ("Co-Operative Foundry"), appears nowhere in this book, and in fact the word foundry appears nowhere in this book. Three separate footnotes go to "Engineering Publications, p. 92", which actually appears to be an ad for angled pipe by an unrelated company.
Unlike some of the nominator's other many recent GA nominations I didn't find any inappropriately close paraphrasing, I think mainly because the only in-depth source recent enough to be in copyright ("Rochester's Leaders and Their Legacies") didn't have any text that was close to relevant.
This is so far from passing GACR 1 (well written), GACR 2 (appropriately sourced), and probably (if it were well enough written to even tell) GACR 3 (covers the whole subject in appropriate detail) that I think it qualifies for WP:GAFAIL 1 ("a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria"). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)