Talk:Samuel Turell Armstrong/GA1

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Some of the chronology is a little strange. His discovery of the manuscript (1816) immediately follows his proprietorship (1844); that's quite a leap back. The Scott's Family Bible, if I'm reading the sources right, was published by Crocker & Brewster after he turned over the business, but it's mentioned in the previous paragraph. Also, the name "Hill" is misspelled in the references section.
 * As far as the chronology is concerned, I thought the bit about proprietorship would look more out of place at the end of the paragraph (which is mostly about the book business), and fit better with his officeholding in the church. I agree the date juxtaposition is a bit odd, but thought it the less bad of two awkward options.
 * Armstrong was clearly still in charge when the first editions of Scott's came out (I've seen ads for it in Google Books that date to 1815). I've added another cite that makes it clear it first came out on Armstrong's watch.  Magic ♪piano 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * You should mention the date he left the Senate in the prose. I'm surprised his time with the military company isn't mentioned, also, given that it's such a short article.
 * Done and done; I had been vacillating about adding the military company activity, but you're right, it adds a tad more.  Magic ♪piano 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It's a well-researched article on a minor figure, so good job. I'll leave this on hold so you can address the things I mentioned (feel free to disagree). Thanks. —Designate (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It's a well-researched article on a minor figure, so good job. I'll leave this on hold so you can address the things I mentioned (feel free to disagree). Thanks. —Designate (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It's a well-researched article on a minor figure, so good job. I'll leave this on hold so you can address the things I mentioned (feel free to disagree). Thanks. —Designate (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review! I believe I've addressed your issues.  Magic ♪piano 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations. I'll pass it. Designate (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)