Talk:John Davis Long/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A good article is—  :  ; and .   :  ;  ;  <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol> <li>.</li> <li>.</li> ✅ <li>:</li> ✅ <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> ✅ <li>. </li> ✅ </ol> </ol>

Review notes

 * References
 * "History". Zadoc Long Free Library. Retrieved 2013-03-18 - This is simply not an acceptable, reliable source for the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the first reviewer I have encountered that did not consider such an item of information authoritative when given on the relevant organization's own web site.  Magic ♪piano 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses third-party sources for claims such as charitable contributions of historic figures. This source is the library's "About Us" section. Wikipedia allows the use of this source for claims about the subject itself on the article about the subject however, sourcing claims about other subjects must be independent of both the library itself and the subject of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am in no hurry here but a good article would use a reference such as this book source that contains more details about the donation.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like a fairly fine distinction, but I'm not going to belabor the point. I've changed the citation.  Magic ♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "DANFS entry for USS Long". United States Navy. Retrieved 2013-03-18 - The page is no longer available.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an archive link.  Magic ♪piano 20:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That link is still unable to display a page.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an archive link to the information. The internet site is the host but the source is the original publisher that they only record.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, given that the page was accessible through the archive when I set it up... I've found the current location for the DANFS link.  Magic ♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutrality
 * "..a period that notably included the primarily naval Spanish–American War". Manual of Style/Words to watch. notably should be removed and that should read: "..a period that included the Spanish–American War..."✅ by reviewer. Is this acceptable to nominator?
 * This is fine.  Magic ♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "...which were relatively undistinguished". Editorializing. Adding opinion of either the editor or the author. This must be removed or reworded to be the claim of the author with attribution by name in the text with the reference.
 * I've changed "undistinguished" to "uneventful", which is the word used in the source, and attributed it to the author.  Magic ♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "..,and in a politically calculated move" Editorializing. Adding opinion of either the editor or the author. This must be removed or reworded to be the claim of the author with attribution by name in the text with the reference.
 * Done.  Magic ♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Break

I'll return shortly to add a few more notes--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I just need to check a few things and I will be ready to list as GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Listed as GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)