Talk:J. Cleaveland Cady/GA1

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 17:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article using the table below. Comments will follow shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions at any time!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  17:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Rublamb, I've spent some time starting a source spot-check and a reliability check. This is a really interesting article, so thank you for all your work on it. I wonder if you'd like to take a look at my comments so far before I go any further with the review? Conscious there are a lot of sources and citations and I want to make sure you agree with my suggestions. Let me know what you think!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  20:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unexpectedlydian: I don't have a problem working through your comments and making corrections. (I will get started shortly). This was one of my early articles and probably can use some cleanup; I appreciate your time on this. I suspect I might have been more flexible on some online sources back then, and will gladly take a look. I know that Daytonian in Manhattan consists of academic-quality articles with citations so that we don't have to worry about it. Sorry that some citation links are dead; all were fine back when I posted it for GA review but that was months ago. I will go through and fix any others that I find. In general, I don't see an issue with using an article on a church's website as a source for basic facts on a church building. One way to look at it is that the church's website is secondary as it is not by Cady or anyone involved in the church's construction. Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and [WP:PRIMARYCARE]] indicate that sources such as these may be the best source for specific facts. That being said, I will see if there is something else out there. Almost all of his projects were written up in professional magazines. These journals are mostly digitized but not indexed, so it is time-consuming to go through each issue but it is doable. Newspapers.com and the NY Times may be another option. I will get to it! Again, thanks for taking this on. Rublamb (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, very happy to go consider the sources within this context.  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unexpectedlydian: I have addressed all of your comments. In addition, I went through the sources and replaced others that were similiar to the ones you mentioned. The article should be better now, ready for the rest of the GA review process. Many thanks. Rublamb (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rublamb Brilliant, thanks so much for your prompt reply. I will continue with the review now :)  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rublamb Thanks for bearing with me as I finished the review. Initial review is now complete. Hopefully my suggestions are self-explanatory. Do let me know if you have any questions!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unexpectedlydian: I believe I have addressed everything. Let me know if you see anything else. Thanks so much for your detailed review. Very helpful. Rublamb (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rublamb Thank you for addressing everything, I appreciate the work which has gone into this article! Happy to promote this to GA now, well done :)  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  10:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)