Talk:Ludington family/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am going to work up a GA Review of this article and will start in on it within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * No QuickFail issues. No copyvios, no warning templates, etc. Shearonink (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I just need to read through it a couple more times to make sure but at this time looking good. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Word choices:
 * "Historian LaReina Rule" doesn't seem quite correct. Ms. Rule was an author who wrote books about baby names' meanings and had a newspaper column. It would be better to describe her as an Author.
 * ✅ -- Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Historian Willis Fletcher Johnson" seems to not be quite correct. It would be more apt to describe him as an author or journalist.
 * ✅ -- Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No other prose issues found.Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref checks - sorry these might be misplaced but this is where it's going so I don't forget. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 31/NGA - I was unable to get this one to resolve
 * ✅ -- Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 28/History of Putnam County - should have the original publisher information per here.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 25 is incomplete. Needs website/publisher type of info.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 22 is incomplete. Needs publisher etc.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) *All other refs looks good. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) 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: {{GAList/check|+}
 * The references are a mix of sfn nomenclature and citation style 1(cite web/book/etc). I'd like your reason for doing so. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't know if there is a specific MOS style rule on this. With that being said I have done it this way for over 100 Good Articles (31 in October alone) that have been reviewed by several different reviewers and none objected to this method or brought it up.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I just started doing GA Reviews again after a long hiatus and wanted to make sure. Thx for the speedy response. Shearonink (talk) 20:16, 5 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:
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Asserted facts and statements are sourced. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - no issues. Shearonink (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Yes. It covers the main aspects and has wiki-links to the associated standalone "Main articles". Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I am impressed by how the article has short summaries for all the linked "Main article" Ludington family articles. The Legacy section though...it's interesting but seems trivial to mention the furniture as a legacy...usually legacy sections are laws that were passed by the subject or family endowments to colleges...that kind of information, but let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Issues addressed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment of the layout of the article. It made sense to me to structure it this way from my past experience of creating some 500 articles. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To reply to your point about legacy - I see what you are saying and I certainly can agree with that. That section is a very small part of the article and certainly has no bearing or influence on any other section - so, I have no objection to just removing the section as I did. Is that o.k. with you? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your change is fine. I do think the information is interesting and hate to lose the cite. Just a thought but perhaps it could be converted to an External link? Kind of a "here's more info Dear Reader plus if there's any more up-to-date info on what happened with those family artifacts/historic furniture pieces. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ External links section added with heirloom article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning Harrison Ludington I think perhaps a link to List of governors of Wisconsin somewhere in his section might be appropriate. Thoughts? Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ wl Governor of Wisconsin --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Yes. No evidence of bias. Shearonink (talk) 06:35, 8 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. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 5 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:
 * Images are all appropriately tagged. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are relevant and this is just a personal preference - not a GA thingy - but alt-text is helpful as an accommodation to differently-sighted readers. Could they possible be added to the images? Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I never realized myself until it was pointed out to me how important alt-text can be to readers with vision issues. Shearonink (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * PASS:
 * Am going to go through the article several more times this weekend. Need 1A & 1B attended to but everything is looking good so far. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All above issues to date addressed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read over the article's prose and it fulfills the GA prose criteria. Congrats, Ludington family is a Good Article. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)