Talk:Homer Davenport/GA1

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. On first glance, the article looks well-prepared and is very informative. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Elucidate: "rail line dubbed the "Millionaire's Special" to work in New York."
 * It should probably be mentioned that this was the Morris & Essex line and then qualify it with its nickname.
 * We can wikilink, but Wehwalt will have to see if the Huot source cited for this verifies the name of the line or if it just says "Millionaire's Special." This article is heading for FAC eventually, so we have to be quite meticulous about WP:SYNTH and all that.  Welcome your thoughts on that matter, Colonel... -_MTBW
 * I live in the area, so I know the rail lines (I commute on them frequently)--a lot of the local and railroad histories refer to the old DL&W Morris & Essex lines (there are a few) as such because of the areas it reached out of NYC (Morristown, Morris Plains, Madison, Chatham, Gladstone, Montclair. If it's not in Huot, I can point you to a few sources. If you are thinking it might be WP:SYNTH, I'd also direct you to WP:SYNTHNOT since many editors have a very vague but unfortunately narrow idea of synthesis. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to the article, with a source and a piped link, see if we have addressed your concerns!  Montanabw (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Needs source: All entries are displayed during the festival in the Silverton Art Association's Borland Gallery - The cn tag ought to be resolved. Can't advance an article as GA if it has unresolved tags.
 * I fixed that, removed the material that I cannot locate a citation for and added a new citation.  Montanabw (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Review and criteria analysis
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I see that the nominating editor has taken considerable effort in improving this article seeking outside copyeditors and reviews. As such, this article was well-prepared for this GAN. I commend User:Montanabw and his/her fellow contributors on presenting a well-written and informative article on an intriguing subject.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Prose is clear and concise; no evidence or indication of any copyvio issues; no obvious spelling or grammatical errors (article appears to have been intensively well-vetted for them before GAN).
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Article complies with the GA 1b criteria MOS requirements.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Article has a suitable reference section per MOS and citations guidelines.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Article's content is supported by inline citations and is well-sourced.
 * C. No original research:
 * No evidence or indication of any original research concerns.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Article comprehensively addresses major aspects of the subject's life and accomplishments.
 * B. Focused:
 * Article is focused and complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article is neutral. No evidence or indication of any bias or POV.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Article history appears to be stable with no evidence or indication of content disputes or disruptive edit-warring.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are public domain and comply with image use policy.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All images are relevant to the article's subject and in my judgment the captions are suitable/compliant with WP:CAPTION
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Promoted to Good Article status. This article, in my estimation and understanding of the GA criteria, deserves to be included among the best content on Wikipedia. I look forward to the editors proceeding to FAC in the near future and gladly will offer my support then and there.