Talk:Benson raft/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Criteria
1. Prose

2. Verifiability ❌

3. Depth of Coverage ❌

4. Neutral

5. Stable ✅

6. Illustrations

7. Miscellaneous

Comments
1.
 * "They seem also to have been employed on the Rhine River in 1888" - Is the Rhine River the Rhive River? I'm thinking so, based on the European-sounding place names and the fact that the NYT seems to have picked the story up from a London paper.  If so, link.  If not, specify where the river is.
 * ✅ - Mayence is on the Rhine River. Newcastle article--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Link drafting to the appropriate article about the draft of ships.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Link derrick
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Link board feet to board foot
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

2.
 * " Four of the 120 were lost due to fire or storms." - Citation needed


 * "John A. Festabend was Benson's construction supervisor near Clatskanie, Oregon." - Citation needed
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "St. John's NL" is the location for one of the ref, go ahead and spell out the province. I'm assuming it's Newfoundland and Labrador (I've been asked to do this in reviews of articles I've submitted through GAN)


 * "Journal of forest history, Volumes 14-15, Forest History Society, 1970" - Can we get a page number and an ISSN for this?


 * "American forests, Volume 43, Author American Forestry Association, Publisher: American Forestry Association, 1937" - Clean this long citation up, it has some formatting issues. Honestly, it might be best to use the various citation templates for these, although it's not required.


 * Use title case for the book titles and journal names, since these are proper nouns.


 * For the pre-ISBN sources, can you try to track down OCLCs or ISSNs for verifiability purposes?


 * When the location of publishing is known, can it be added for the sources?


 * Ref 1 is dead


 * Ref 10 needs a year. It's a biennial report, so we need to know which report is actually being cited.


 * Ref 14 is a bare URL, it needs a real citation. Also, it's not quite to the right URL,  seems to be the one with the information.


 * Ref 11 needs page numbers


 * Ref 12 has the wrong title


 * "Andrews, pp. 130-32" - Use the full page numbers for the range, such as 130132.


 * Generally, you can use whatever citation style you prefer, but these are all over the place and very nonstandard.


 * The online refs need accessdates.

3.
 * Why did these fall out of use? When were they last used?  is not an RS, but it suggests that there's definitely more that can be stated about this topic.  If you can track down anything about that in a reliable source, it should be added.  The article is really lacking on needed information about the end of the use of these, it's like we only get half of the story.
 * "John A. Festabend was Benson's construction supervisor near Clatskanie, Oregon." - This belongs more in the section about construction.

4.
 * "While this practical transportation method was first used" - Practical's a bit of a puff word here, probably best to omit it.

5.

6.
 * Honestly, File:Benson cigar raft.jpg on Commons might be a better image than one of the two in the article. It's a bit grainy, but not unduly so for a black-and-white photo, it's public domain, and it actually gives a view of the entire raft, which is lacking from the two already in the article.

7.
 * Rename the Further reading section to Sources, since it lists the sources used in the article. Further reading is for when additional sources not used in the article are enumerated.
 * The section heading Lower shipping costs isn't really helpful, since the section is only partially about lower shipping costs. Use or something like that might be better

I'm sorry Doug, you've produced a lot of good work for this project, but I'm going to have to quick-fail this one. One of the criteria for quick-fail is "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", and this article is not close to criteria #2 and #3. There's several points where citations are needed, and almost all of the refs are either dead or have formatting issues. With #3, like I said earlier, it's like only half of the story is being told - there's a lot of detail about the end of their use that is lacking, and some research on my part suggests that this information is available. I hate quick-failing, (I've only done it a couple times), but this isn't there yet. If you don't think the quick-fail was appropriate, tell me, and I'll revert the closure and request a new reviewer at WT:GAN. Sorry. Hog Farm (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! You are a very good editor and I respect your opinion. I will take all these pointers you have given me to heart and apply them in an improved version of the article I plan on doing. It may take me awhile, however it gives me an excellent project to do during this time of Stay Home orders. I will resubmit it later AFTER I do a lot of polishing. Thanks again for all your hard work.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made several improvements to the article. If you have suggestions for any further improvements I would appreciate your input. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)