Talk:New Bedford Historic District/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. So far it looks fine. I have a few suggestions listed in the comments below. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Look through the article and remove wikilinks to common words that a speaker of English can be expected to know, per MOS:LINK.
 * Which ones? Harbor? I tried to keep the links down but I tend to use WP:CONTEXT as a guide.
 * ✅ I have gotten rid of some and pointed a few others to more specific articles (zoning ---> Zoning in the United States, whaling > Whaling in America and so forth. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to have a Bibliography or Reference section for full information on Footnotes e.g. Melville's book, publisher ISBN etc. See WP:LAYOUT and How to present citations.
 * Even when using the wikisource edition (which I think is what we are encouraged to use when it's available)?
 * Yes, per Good article criteria, WP:LAYOUT, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:FN,  etc. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I have noticed that the Moby-Dick article includes quite a few online editions of the novel in its xlinks section in addition to Wikisource. I would submit that, for a novel so long in the public domain and thus essentially published online as well as in print, having a specific edition in the bibliography would be pointless as there has long been no "standard" edition and thus page numbers for one print edition are probably not valid for others, certainly not when so many complete online editions exist. Perhaps we should ask about this at one of relevant talk pages and get some consensus. I couldn't find anything at any of those pages which would offer guidance. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I put in the Plain Label Books Google Books edition (which can be freely browsed). Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also need to give page numbers locating the reference in the Footnotes for everything, like books, that have page numbers.
 * Sure. The NRHP application is thin compared to other, more modern ones, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have page numbers.
 * ✅ Grew the footnote list a bit that way. Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding piped links, such as his mansion for Rotch-Jones-Duff House and Garden Museum, I know there are differing views on this issue. The general rule is to avoid misleading or surprising the reader, and that it is best to give context information up front so the reader does not have to click the link to get the gist.
 * You're thinking of WP:EGG, which says to avoid those links when the full meaning is apparent only by mousing over, because that meaning is lost on someone reading a hard copy of the article. I think that using "his house" after using Rotch's name makes it pretty evident both in hard copy and soft whose house is being referred to.
 * As long as you are not going to FAC, it doesn't matter. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I decided to find a better way around this one: "his house, now the Rotch-Jones-Duff House and Garden Museum ..." Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your description of the history and the great quote from Herman Melville.
 * Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Including page numbers
 * Just read it again. It is an excellent article. Very well done. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:CITE

'''If you are quoting from, paraphrasing, or referring to a specific passage of a book or article, you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage. In the case of books, the edition of the book should also be included because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books.''' Page numbers within a book or article are not required when a citation is for a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view. Inline citations

In most cases, an inline citation is required in addition to the full citation. This shows which specific part of the article a citation is being applied to. Inline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. They are particularly appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * if you find a concensus where page numbers are not necessary for quotes, than I will go with that concensus. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I came up with a better idea. I will link to a Google Books version. Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Just one more thing: per WP:LAYOUT, you need a Bibliograhpy section (or References section if you put the footnotes under a "Notes" section. Here you give the full listing for any book referenced, such a Moby Dick It is not very clear, but Citing_sources explains, sort of. See SS Dakotan for an example. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Both books cited are now in the new section. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: