Talk:Edward Thonen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 01:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this soon. Steelkamp (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. If you have concerns left about the citation issues raised on the talk page, let me know. I hope the problems have been addressed already. Renerpho (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made a first round of corrections and responded to some of your comments. I won't have time to work on this further for the weekend, but I'll see to respond to the remaining questions (or any new ones) after that. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well written

 * the Stockade. Should this be in lowercase? Eureka Rebellion has it in lowercase when Eureka is left out.
 * ✅ I believe the literature had it either way. For the time being, there's no damage done by making it lower case. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Elberfeld's citizens joined in late on the democrats' cause during the revolution. Is there a page that democrats can be linked to?
 * ✅ Linked to democracy. This is what the disambiguation page Democrat currently does, too. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately,. This seems to violate Neutral point of view.
 * ✅ Removed. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

 * I'm concerned about note A. Even though it's not used as a source, the page linked is a wiki, which is advised against in most situations.
 * I share the concern. There are two alternatives: Either include the list here as references, or remove it. Neither would be detrimental I think, just less practical. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reference 4 will definitely need to be removed.
 * ✅ Reference 3 works for that (see next comment). Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you email me the contents of reference 3? It's possible that source will suffice for the previous sentence.
 * I replaced the reference. I'll see what I can do about reference 3. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please let me know how to contact you. Renerpho (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:EmailUser. Steelkamp (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * was widely publicized.
 * Please clarify what's the problem. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is reference 5? Is it a baptism certificate?
 * about what he did during the German revolutions of 1848–1849, whether he was politically active, and if he got in trouble with the law. Why does this sentence have no references? Could the references for the previous sentence be moved to the end of this sentence?
 * ✅ Moved. These references were intended to refer to the entire sentence. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ^ Is that paragraph even needed at all?
 * This makes up a significant portion of the discussion about Thonen in scholarly articles (which is sparse in general, for lack of concrete evidence). I can only speculate why so much focus was put on this, because I personally see little evidence that he was involved in the events. If there had been no prior mention of Thonen in published works, and we had written his story from scratch, there would have been no portion on the 1848–1849 revolutions. However, given that people have talked about it, I think it is worth including. Is it needed? I honestly don't know. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The historian Gregory Blake states in his 2013 thesis that Edward may have been among them,[7] although there is no proof of his participation, or that he even was in Elberfeld at the time. This entire section seems too shaky to include. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Can you demonstrate that reference 7 satisfies this?
 * have pointed out that England had become a kind of safe haven for political refugees from Germany, and that Thonen may have been among those who found it more suitable, be it forcefully or on his own accord. This has no reference. Can reference 9 be moved to the end of that sentence?
 * ✅ Moved. Reference 9 was the intended source in this case. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thonen would likely have travelled via Cologne, and from there to Brussels, using the Cologne-Aachen-railway. This was Prussia's most busy passenger railway line at the time, and the oldest international railway line in the world. This seems to be original research. The sources do not mention Thonen. I also question the reliability of reference 50.
 * ✅ Removed note, which includes reference 50. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thonen moved to Islington, London. This seems to be original research. The Ancestry website displays a primary source. There is no proof that the Edward Thonen in that source is the same one.
 * There is proof, yes (the census record gives his place of origin, Elberfeld, and his age; that's enough to identify him). That said, you are right that this is a primary source. I'll think about an alternative! Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

 * praising his ability to speak numerous European languages. Do we know which languages?
 * ✅ I added that this includes French, German, Dutch, and Spanish. It is not clear which languages he actually taught, and the list of specific languages only appears in the news reports from the 1890s. Such a list is not included in any of the 1852 news reports or court documents we found. However, we were unable to find the direct source for the 1890s reports, so a contemporary source for this may very well exist somewhere, and I think the statement is believable. Reference 2 says that he could speak French, German, Dutch, Spanish, every European tongue. I don't think the every European tongue part is literally true. Renerpho (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

General
I'm going to have to fail this review. There has been no progress with the sourcing recently. Steelkamp (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sadly there was absolutely no time to work on this (or on Wikipedia in general). Sorry to Steelkamp for the effort they invested so far. I hope I'll be able to return to this article eventually and provide the work it needs. Renerpho (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)