Talk:Westinghouse Time Capsules/GA1

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

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westinghouse Time Capsules
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Westinghouse Time Capsules you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

Lead section
The lead section of this article is written with very minimal punctuation given the complexity of sentence structure. It is well written, however, at times can be confusing due to the lack of breaks in voice. This is particularly prominent in the first sentence of the article where "prepared by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company" runs into the rest of the sentence. Please consider proofreading or copywriting the lead for grammar in this regard. Additionally, the term "common objects of the time" is confusing as the date of capsule preparation had not been yet been established. In fact, the date of capsule preparation is not included at all in the lead. I would strongly suggest this given that time capsules are inherently dependent on... well... time.
 * --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, there are many opportunities to add additional WikiLinks in the lead, and although it is beyond the scope of GA criteria, it should be considered for future revisions of the article.
 * --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Construction
I would consider amending the title of this section to "Background and Construction", or something to include the details of the first paragraph as they do not relate directly to construction, and instead serve the purpose of providing background information on the capsules. Especially the last sentence of that paragraph: "The term "time capsule" was coined by George Edward Pendray for the 1939 World's Fair Westinghouse exhibit in New York City for objects of the time placed in a tube for people of the future," which almost falls into the realm of trivia. I would consider better integrating that information.
 * --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, the creation of two separate sections, one for construction and one for background, and expanding more on the history and background of the capsules is also possible.
 * --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

1965 Time Capsule II Contents
This section of the article only cites 1 source and, as informative as it may be, it does not verify the existence of guest book pins, or the 5 categories of contents listed. Additionally, each of the 5 categories for the 1939 capsule are broken down clearly and concisely, giving examples of contents that may fall into each category.
 * --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Image Captioning
Please make sure to review 6b above regarding image captions.
 * --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Babegriev (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Thoughts
This is a really well-illustrated and interesting article, however, it is a bit of a ways away from meeting all GA criteria. My biggest concern overall is the lead section, and would advise it is copyedited carefully. This is a reader's first impression of the topic, and should reflect the fluency demonstrated later in the article. I hope this review has brought a few areas of improvement to light. Thank you to all contributors of this project for the time and effort you have put in.

All the very best, Babegriev (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Update 9/16/20
There is only one outstanding item that I'm tied up on from above. There is still no source for the alloy composition of Kromarc under Construction. I looked through the surrounding sources and did not see any evidence of the cited composition. After a quick google search for Kromarc patents, the sources varied on the exact composition (see here, here, and here). I'm curious as to the source of the cited composition, since it seems to have been from a topic-specific outlet. If I'm missing something right in front of me, I apologize in advance. If the source is unknown, then the content should be removed or amended. Thank you for the above edits, the lead section is remarkably improved.
 * on Kromarc. --18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Outcome
Based on the assessed criteria, this article qualifies as a Good Article. Thank you, and congratulations to everyone who has contributed.