Talk:Manistee Watch Company/GA2

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

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have started reading this article.VR talk 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

some early thoughts as I read the article.
 * "" What was the name of this case company? VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ->Star Watch Company is in the first paragraph of the History section. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added it to the lead too.VR talk 14:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't adequately summarize the article. For example, there is a section on hairspring and the article says "". That sounds significant enough to merit mention in the lead. Likewise there is nothing about jewels or the company's legacy in the lead, even though these have a section each in the article. VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should the gallery be below the section Legacy. Usually gallery come after all prose sections.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Now for the review. The article is well written. No spelling or grammatical issues, sentences are not too long and I can follow the prose easily. It follows MOS guidelines, no WTA that I can see. Lead follows MOS and the issues I identified with the lead above were fixed by - thanks for that. Every sentence in the article body has a citation. The sources are appropriate for this article, and I don't see any reliability issues. Citation style is appropriate. No original research, no excessive quotations. No BLP issues. All major aspects seem to be addressed. This is not a broad topic to begin with and I suspect reliable sources don't have much to say about this watch company. So while the article is small, I don't see any problems with that. There are no issues relating to unnecessary detail. No NPOV issues. Again, this topic isn't one that I'd suspect of being prone to NPOV issues. The article is written objectively. Nothing controversial in the content that would make me suspect issues with WP:DUE. Yes. I don't see any recent disputes in the article history or talk page. All images are relevant and have captions. I don't see any copyright issues with any of them.
 * 1. Well-written.
 * 2. Verifiable with no original research.
 * 3. Broad in its coverage.
 * 4. Neutral:
 * 5. Stable:
 * 6. Illustrated:

I saw this article was reviewed before (version reviewed). I think the article has come a long way since, especially with respect to organization. So I'm going ahead and passing the GA nom.VR talk 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)