Talk:William Hoskins (inventor)

Additional potential sources

The CHiC2 source identified the following offline sources:

• Miles, Wyndham D., ed. American Chemists and Chemical Engineers. Washington: American Chemical Society, 1976. 231-232.
• Marquis, Albert Nelson, ed. Who's Who in Chicago: The Book of Chicagoans. Chicago: A.N. Marquis and Company, 1931.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

More (not sure if URLs still valid):

• "Chairmen of the Chicago Section of ACS", A Guide to the Chemical History of Chicago. [7]
• http://www.toaster.org/hoskins.html
• http://www.toaster.org/hoskins2.html
• http://www.toaster.org/toastove.html

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Relevant 1901 lawsuit

Unresolved

 – Source not added to article yet.

[This thread was moved here from User talk:SMcCandlish.

See Hoskins v. Mathhes. Quite a lot of detailed information such as the full breakdown of the chemical formula used for their chalk, how they came up with the idea, prior similar compounds and more. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hot stuff! (Sorry, I forgot to comment on this when originally posted.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Hoskins (inventor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Nominator: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I really like your way of reviewing an article and in-turn requesting for a review. Continuing that, here are few GA comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• Ref#3 – ""William Hoskins" entry" – Quotes inside quoted should be single quotation marks (')
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Hoskins would complete just ..... his early years. – can we split the sentence?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Link Detroit
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "early versions of the toaster" – not sure why 'the' is piped inside the link.
  • Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• We need a separate "Notes" section for that single End footnote.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#8 just reads "Archived copy"
  • Added title Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#6, check the title, and lowercase the title and publisher/website.
  • Fixed, though I think the reviewer wasn't clear. The issue was that we were giving it lower case when it shouldn't be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish – Just to clarify, the version which I reviewed had "Toasters {} BETHANY MISSION GALLERY" as the title in Ref#6. It needed to be lower-cased as to avoid irrelevant emphasis, and the extra '{}' needed to be removed. Now, it is fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#13 – What makes it reliable.
  • It's not being used as a reliable source for claimed facts in the article; it's being used the primary WP:ABOUTSELF source of the "axolite" error. That is, it's an unreliable source except as a source for the fact that it contains this error, which was later popularized on CSI (and has not been found in any source material pre-dating this publication). It's like quoting tweets of Trump showing him lying; it's proof that the statement happened, not a reliable source that the claim made in the lie is true (nor that it is a lie; other sources tell us that, just as in this case other and more reliable sources tell us the correct name is "aloxite").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for replacing the citation with a more reliable source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• There is a "[unreliable source?]" tag on Ref#14. Can it be replaced?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#18 – not formatted properly. Lacks URL access date, and few other parameters.
  • It's a specific template. It didn't allow me to added an access-date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • All of the refs can be redone, with patience, in WP:CS1 templates as we like, but this is not required for GA (or even for FA).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I didn't realized that it was a specific template. No issues then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#19 – check the title.
  • No such ref. any longer. I've checked all remaining sources, and the URLs for them work (or their archive-url works; I added two of those) and the titles seem to check out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Format the ISBN using this tool.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Chemist William Hoskins and family ca 1885.png – can't claim that the author died 70 years ago, when we don't know who the author is. But the image should be fine to use, if {{PD-US-expired}} is used, as it was taken in 1885.
  • License fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Spinks Billiard Chalk box top ca 1900.jpg – The work may be in PD, but is the image also in PD? Who took the image, it will most likely depend on the author of the image, as to whether they have released the image in Public Domain.
  • SMcCandlish (uploader) would know much more on the suitability for commons on these images. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. It's a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensionial product label, so copyright doesn't apply to it, only to the underlying label which is now PD. It's licensed on Commons as it is for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Fine then. Still, if we could get any details as to who the author of the image is. But, that doesn't affect this GA nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Unknown at this stage. Might have been me; I had a collection of billiards memorabilia but I liquidated it in the mid 2010s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• The image could probably use ALT text.
  • Done  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Copyvio detects this one is quite similar......
  • A bit of that is WP:LIMITED, but there is one section where it is kinda bad. I've reworded to avoid the copyvio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• That is all from me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for poring over the details. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski – Everything seems good. Passing the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.