Talk:Hammer Historical Collection of Incandescent Electric Lamps/GA1

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

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 07:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * The references are incorrectly formatted. Please unify the "references" and "sources" sections into the "references" section by moving citations inline and using the  templates, and then remove the "sources" section.  Consider adding access dates or source dates to references where possible.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The references are incorrectly formatted. Please unify the "references" and "sources" sections into the "references" section by moving citations inline and using the  templates, and then remove the "sources" section.  Consider adding access dates or source dates to references where possible.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The statement "The collection of lamp bulbs is the most comprehensive known in the world." in the lead paragraph should be cited.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Much of the page text is very similar in layout to one of the referenced pages. It isn't copied verbatim and has certainly been paraphrased beyond changing a word here and there, but it could probably benefit from more paraphrase and more combination of material from different sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Try to relate the second paragraph of "American Institute of Electrical Engineers" to the exhibit itself; currently, it makes statements of fact about the development of lightbulbs in general terms. This is not a blocking issue; it's reasonably intuitive (I think?) how the material relates to the topic.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * I noticed that most images were tagged PD-US even though they stated publication before 1923, so I updated most of them to use PD-1923 instead. However, a handful are mysteriously licensed under CC ShareAlike with caveats - are we able to determine if there was some creative effort that gave rise to the claim of copyright for specifically those images?  They seem to have identical provenance... I don't think mere digitization confers copyright, but I'm no expert.  It would also be good for someone to eventually clear any possible claim of copyright from the PD-1923 images over at commons.  However, as it stands, there are no copyright issues apparent with the images in use on the page.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * This is an extraordinarily well-illustrated article! Well done!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Once the outstanding issues above with citations are resolved, I think we can promote this to GA.
 * I believe I corrected those items of issue. If I missed something, let me know and I will gladly fix.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good! The references technically meet the MoS guidelines but could probably be moved to citations; the rest of the advice here is completely optional for a GA.  Congratulations on the good article!  As an aside, if you're ever in Seattle, I think you might enjoy the Museum of Communications.  FalconK (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for GA status. Thanks for advice - I think I have now formatted the Reference section the way you suggested. Yes, the Museum of Communications would be right up my ally - especially since my background was as an electronic's technician repairing computers.-- Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I believe I corrected those items of issue. If I missed something, let me know and I will gladly fix.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good! The references technically meet the MoS guidelines but could probably be moved to citations; the rest of the advice here is completely optional for a GA.  Congratulations on the good article!  As an aside, if you're ever in Seattle, I think you might enjoy the Museum of Communications.  FalconK (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for GA status. Thanks for advice - I think I have now formatted the Reference section the way you suggested. Yes, the Museum of Communications would be right up my ally - especially since my background was as an electronic's technician repairing computers.-- Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2016‎ (UTC)