Talk:John Leamy (merchant)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominator has been inactive, so I am closing this review based on prose clarity issues. The article is not far from GA status; if the nominator or anyone else addresses my comments and renominates this, please feel free to message me for a quick review, so that it does not sit in the queue for many more months. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
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:
 * 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:
 * Sources seem solid
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig's tool highlights quotes, spotchecks are clear
 * 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):
 * 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:
 * Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * The early life section is very brief; is anything more available?
 * This is quite a short article; I don't think the business section needs a further summary paragraph. I would include that content in the lead.
 * "In a time where Spanish mercantilist policy was the primary obstacle to trade" This sounds POV even if that isn't the intention. Trade between what parties? The way it's written, it could be global trade.
 * Who is Francisco Rendón?
 * "ambassador Josef de Jáudenes" One may presume this is the Spanish ambassador to the US, but that's not necessarily a good assumption; being explicit would be helpful.
 * If you are quoting, I would recommend saying whose quote it was. Also, the quotation in paragraph two of "methods" is a bit lengthy; try to remove stuff that can be paraphrased easily.
 * "As agent he used" What does "agent" mean in this context?
 * "In March 1788 an advertisement showed "Leamy and Elliot"" Without further context as to who Elliot was, this doesn't add much.
 * I would strongly recommend switching the "expansion" and "methods" subsections; that would be more in keeping with chronology, and would flow better, in my opinion
 * "After a temporary lifting of trade restrictions" What restrictions?
 * You have rather a lot of short paragraphs; I would prefer combining these, especially the one-sentence one
 * Link/explain "pewholder"
 * I think a bulleted list, including days of birth, for five children, is excessive. The specific dates aren't very important. I would make that a single sentence, with years of birth in parentheses.
 * "according to a Catholic history"; what do you mean by this?
 * "and predominance in Spanish rather than American archives" I think I know what you mean here, but I'm uncertain; perhaps "and their presence in Spanish, rather than American archives"?
 * I would strongly recommend you use sfn formatting, for accessibility; however, I cannot compel you, per WP:CITEVAR, and this is a recommendation only.
 * Sources look alright; a PhD dissertation is not ideal; is there any way you can replace it?
 * The lead is really short. Can you beef it up a little? Two or three sentences should be quite easy.