Wikipedia:Peer review/Clarence Chesterfield Howerton/archive2

Clarence Chesterfield Howerton edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominated this again at GA, as I feel that I have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review. I previously listed this for peer review; but got only one response from a plea at the Teahouse, but I would like a more thorough review this time, so that I can pass when I nominate this as a GAN again. =

Thanks, Mat ty.007 12:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from LT910001 edit

Hi, thanks for your work on this article. I think this article is sufficiently well-written to be considered for GA, and has been expanded since the nomination. The verifiability issue is still notable, especially the reference to the two blogs. I would suggest to rectify this, which in my mind would be the major issue preventing nomination, you could directly cite the original article in "The White Tops" Sept./Oct. 1992, as noted on both blog posts (and provided in photocopy form on one). You can provide a link in that citation to the photocopied variant, but unfortunately a blog can't be considered a reliable source. Other than that, I would say that this is a well-written article for which GA is certainly achievable. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Do you think it would pass a GA review now LT910001? Thanks for the review, Mat ty.007 08:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will respond on or after the 14th (sorry). LT910001 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back! Thanks for waiting. I agree that this is very close to GA standard, and has definitely improved. I am not too sure about the citation standards for photographs. I feel that the citation standards for the images may have to improve. This would be a citation for a website and then the original source. For example "Orig '34 Texas Giant Jack Earle Major Mite Midget Photo". Worth Point. Retrieved 14 November 2013 citing New York Daily News Archive (1932), "Major Mite with Jack Earle"." Other than this, I think this would be ready for GA status, and would encourage you to sort out other issues during the nomination. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, attempted fix. Mat ty.007 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from Mr. V edit

~~The hatnote is a redlink.~~
- Removed. Mat ty.007
~~Can the lead be expanded at all?~~
- Attempted. Mat ty.007
~~Some of the sections are so short that they could probably be put into other sections.~~
- Attempted merge of one that could be, the last section I think should remain independent. Mat ty.007
~~Along those lines, perhaps we should get rid of the one-sentence paragraphs if possible.~~
- There is only one, which I think can't really be merged. Mat ty.007
~~You might want to put an access date in your sources.~~
- Doing. Mat ty.007

Otherwise looks pretty good. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (t – c) 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Vantine84: do you think that this would pass a GA? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Matty.007: It's looking better. I do agree with the comments in the last GAN - it's a bit brief. A few hundred more words would really help, I think. Is there anything else in the sources? — Mr. V (t – c) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a thorough look when creating the article, and put in as much as I could, adding 175 words, but that was as much as I could add. I have seen shorter GAs, so would this be an issue? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Matty.007: I think your chances are good; you've done pretty well with what you have. All depends on the reviewer, I suppose. Good luck!— Mr. V (t – c) 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Mat ty.007 19:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program edit

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 104 pounds, use 104 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 104 pounds.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: Doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

(t) Josve05a (c) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]