Talk:John Warren Davis (college president)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am going to do a GA Review of this article. I will start within the next few days but be patient...it is massive and will take me quite a while to work my way through the various GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No obvious QuickFail issues. No maintenance templates, no edit warring, no stale notes from a previous GA nom/review. Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you again for taking the time to complete this GAN. I appreciate your efforts, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime, and I'll address them ASAP. Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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:
 * Everything seems to be in grammatical order, nothing that jumps out at me as being in error. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Yes. Well-written. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Am starting in on the references but I see one immediate issue. There is some kind of mangling of Harvard ref for the "The Open Window"/ The Journal of Negro History cite. I am getting "Harv error: duplicate target for CITEREFDavis1981."/"Harv error: CITEREFDavis1981 has multiple targets (2×)" error messages. I'm sure the error is something simple but I can't quite see myself exactly what it is at this time. I'll post about this Harv Cite Ref tool on your user talk so if you don't have it installed you can see what it does and maybe install it for your own use. Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for identifying this issue. I have fixed this issue so that this error no longer occurs. An article written by Davis was listed under the “Selected works” section and in the References section below. I’ve edited the article so that Davis' article only appears under the “Selected works" section. Please let me know if you identify any related citation issues in the meantime! -- West Virginian   (talk)  23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * References are all in accordance with layout style guideline. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Am going through the refs. I will list any issues here:
 * There is some kind of an issue with the archive link for the Morehouse1921 refs. Would you mind taking a look at it? It doesn't seem to be linking completely on - the web archive page.Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for identifying this issue. I've re-archived this source via another archiving site, and I have updated the archive link accordingly. -- West Virginian   (talk)  14:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gloster1981 ref's linkage seems to be slightly mangled. The ref refers to pages 78-80 but the doi part of the ref/that link only goes to Page 78 and I can't access the other pages.Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for identifying this issue as well. I'm rather unfamiliar with doi numbers, but it looks like the University of Chicago provides a doi number for the first page of the article linked to in this journal, and then wants you to login to view the other pages. I've removed the doi number link so that only the JSTOR link is provided. This will allow you to view the entire article for free (with an account) at JSTOR. Let me know if this works better! -- West Virginian   (talk)  14:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have individually verified the first half of the 80+ refs and done some spot-checks of the remaining 40+. They all check out. Well-done. A task for the future will be that if you move ahead in the article-process and decide to submit for an FA, you will need to tag all the refs that are behind a paywall - like Newspapers.com etc - with a "subscription required" template. That's not necessary for a GA though. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Statements are scrupulously sourced. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran Earwig's copyvio tool. No outright copyright violations found but there is some close paraphrasing that is problematic. I bolded one instance of phrasing that is too close to the possible source material. Just put this one paragraph more into your own words and I can then proceed. The copyvio results can be seen here:
 * WP article -
 * Davis was only made aware that West Virginia State was receiving an ASTP unit two weeks before ASTP personnel arrived on its campus. On 16 July 1943, Colonel W. G. Johnston of the Army Service Forces' Fifth Service Command called Davis to inform him, and two days later, Johnston confirmed the tentative number of ASTP trainees, arrival date, and basic engineering courses to be offered, and that a contract "negotiating party" would soon visit the campus. Within a week's time, West Virginia State reached agreements with the Fifth Service Command, and Davis commenced modifications to the college's Gore Hall, where most of the ASTP personnel were housed. On 22 July 1943, Davis wrote to Johnston, asking him to increase the number of ASTP trainees from the expected 150 to 300, a figure which included 17-year-old ASTP reservists from West Virginia who were to be sent to other colleges for ASTP training. In this letter, Davis assured Johnston, "the entire force of this college ... is now busy preparing for the arrival of AST trainees."
 * Possible source material - wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh53-7.html:
 * What is known, however, is that the news came to President Davis scarcely two weeks before the ASTPers appeared on campus, an experience repeated many times around the nation. Colonel W. G. Johnston of the Fifth Service Command, Columbus, Ohio, called President Davis to tell him the good news on July 16, 1943. Two days later he confirmed their tentative agreements on the number of trainees, their arrival, and the basic engineering courses to be studied. Colonel Johnston noted that a contract "negotiating party" would visit Institute shortly. Within a week, agreements had been reached, and President Davis began the correction of certain physical deficiencies in Gore Hall where most of the ASTPers would be housed. On July 22, he wrote to Colonel Johnston asking him to increase the number of trainees from the expected 150 to 300, the larger number to include seventeen-year-old ASTP reservists from West Virginia then being sent to other colleges to pursue ASTP studies. President Davis closed by assuring Colonel Johnston, "the entire force of this college . . . is now busy preparing for the arrival of AST trainees." Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for identifying this instance of close paraphrasing. I've reworded this section to read, "requesting him to expand the anticipated total of 150 trainees to 300, an amount that included 17-year-old West Virginia reservists who were to attend ASTP training at other colleges and universities." Please let me know if this requires further adjustment in the meantime, and thank you again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine now., the paraphrasing was just a little too close before. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Yes. A fascinating read, seems like this man knew everybody in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 20th Century and met US Presidents starting with FDR, was an advisor to Truman. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Fulfills this criteria. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Yes. Stays focused on subject without becoming hagiographic. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit wars, very stable. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Appropriate images. Copyright status is delineated nicely. Especially impressed with the rationale on the infobox portrait of Davis. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|+}
 * The images are all appropriate and relevant and the next is a personal preference, not necessarily part of the GA Criteria... Would it be possible for you to add alt text to the images? I think making the complete article accessible to differently-abled readers is important. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for this recommendation! I've added alt text for each image. Please let me know if these alt captions require any modifications in the meantime. Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  03:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Images are all fine. Nice range of different subjects too. Shearonink (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass:
 * I will read through the article a few more times over the next few days to make sure I haven't missed anything but barring any unforeseen discoveries, I am leaning towards a Pass on this GAN. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you tremendously for your thorough and comprehensive review of this article and for your guidance and recommendations along the way. I really appreciate you taking the time to ensure everything is just right with this article! It's been a pleasure to work with you throughout this process. Please let me know if I may be of any assistance in the meantime! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read through this article again and have to say - Congrats, it's a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)