Talk:John W. Beschter/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
 * I don't usually expect to see references in the lead as everything there should be covered in the main body. So move those awkwardly placed refs out of the lead.
 * Taken care of.  Ergo Sum  00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "who immigrated " emigrated?
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Several "he" in the lead, you could afford to repeat Beschter at least once.
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  00:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "he was a pastor " repeat Beschter here too as the subject is uncertain.
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  00:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A few too many "-ing" for me, e.g. "Upon arriving in" -> "Upon his arrival in", "soon began anglicizing" -> "soon began to anglicize" et seq.
 * I've rephrased several of the progressive form verbs.  Ergo Sum  00:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "In the year of his arrival, Beschter" new section altogether, arrival where?
 * Clarified.  Ergo Sum  00:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "which were comprised by" -> "which comprised"
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  00:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * " from Frederick, Maryland to " comma after Maryland.
 * There is no dependent clause in the sentence before "where they arrived," so I don't believe a comma would go there.  Ergo Sum  00:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "in Adams County, Pennsylvania in " ditto.
 * It appears someone preempted me in placed a comma here.  Ergo Sum  00:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "In 1820, he was " replace he with Beschter (subject unclear once again).
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  00:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think linking "Polish" to Poland is helpful, we generally avoid linking common geographical terms.
 * Unlinked.  Ergo Sum  00:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "in the late winter of 1829" question, was the winter late or was the resignation late in the winter? Or even then, why is "late" important at all?
 * I've rephrased it to be clearer. It's not a terribly important detail, but I see no especially compelling reason for either its inclusion or exclusion.  Ergo Sum  00:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "lack of fluency in speaking and inability to write in English[30] (despite the fact that he was competent enough to preach in English);[31] " really awkward phrasing, any chance of a rework?
 * That was a rather messy sentence. I think it's much clearer now.  Ergo Sum  00:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "45 students enrolled" why not "45 enrolled students"?
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  00:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "He remained at " subject uncertain, repeat surname again.
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  00:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * " of his life.[3] In the last year of his life," repetitive.
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  00:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * " (1741—1889)" looks  like an em-dash, should be en-dash.  Check all.
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  01:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "S.J." is mentioned in the suc-box, but nowhere else that I can tell, what is it?
 * As of now, an editor has removed all the S.J.s from the succession boxes on the basis of MOS:POSTNOM. I do not believe that is a correct application of the policy, which is intended to deal with honorific post-nominals. My logic for including it in the succession boxes was because it shows a continuity of a given office being occupied by members of one order, whereas its usefulness in the article is comparatively less. I will restore the post-nominals to the succession box. If you think they should be included in the text as well, let me know.  Ergo Sum  01:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My initial question was really "what does it mean"? But as it's been removed from everywhere besides a ref  title, that issue has gone away.  If you think it should be re-added, I'll leave it to you, but please do consider that for some of us ignoramuses, S.J. doesn't mean a thing, so at least link it somewhere... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That's all, once again picky stuff, nothing fundamental, almost certainly already GA quality if we just blindly follow the criteria. Hopefully you can take a quick look at these comments and see if you think they're worthy of addressing. I'll place on hold for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thank you for them.  Ergo Sum  01:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm very satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria (exceeds them, in fact). I commented once more on the "SJ" issue, but that won't stand in the way of me promoting this article to GA.  Good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)