Talk:Jean Baptiste Point du Sable/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * need to resolve some issues with reliability of some sources and one citation needed tag.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Need to resolve the image sourcing on one image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General comments:
 * Need to resolve the image sourcing on one image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General comments:
 * General comments:


 * What makes http://www.earlychicago.com/ a reliable source?
 * This website is the online version of a printed book. The book has many individual chapter authors, two of whom are also the publishers of the book, but the citations are to the contributions by John Swenson, who is not one of the publishers, so I don't believe that this counts as a self-published work. I linked to the website rather than citing the book so that readers could have access to the material, I can change the citations to citations to the book if you would prefer. If you are not convinced that this is not a self-published source I also note that WP:RS states that 'self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I believe that John Swenson also satisfies this criterion. He has published on the history of early chicago in other reliable sources such as the Illinois Historical Journal, and his contributions to the book that I cite in this article are widely cited by other authors, for example by historian Dominic A. Pacyga in his recent book 'Chicago: a biography', in which he writes "perhaps the most extensive look at de Sable's life is John F. Swenson, 'John Baptiste Point de Sable: The Founder of Modern Chicago,' in A Compendium of the Early History of Chicago to the Year 1835 When the Indians Left" (p. 413–414).—Jeremy (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're planning on taking this to FAC, I'd hesitate to use this source as a source there. Given the little that is sourced to this content, I'm not going to hold the article up on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The source link for File:Dusablelandmark.jpg doesn't work so I'm unable to verify that it was taken by a federal employee…
 * I'm not sure about this, so I removed it from the article.—Jeremy (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise, what makes http://www.uic.edu/orgs/asri/images/ASRIGAZZETT1.pdf a reliable source?
 * I've removed the sentence that this source supported.—Jeremy (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Need to fix the citation needed tag in the Memorials section.
 * Done. —Jeremy (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it really necessary to go into details about the graduates of the DuSable High School or what it currently is? That should be covered in the article on the school itself.
 * Agreed—removed. —Jeremy (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

All in all, very nice. Just a few niggles, as outlined above. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)