Talk:William Austin Burt/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 17:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * A small suggestion here. In the first paragraph, all but the first sentence begin with the word "He". All but 4 paragraphs in the article begin with the word "Burt".  Could you break that up a bit?
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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:
 * 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:
 * WP:RSPSOURCES - the following are not considered reliable sources
 * Ancestry.com
 * Early Days in New England and Burt, Horace Eldon (1920), written and published by descendants
 * William Austin Burt: Inventor of Typewriter, Solar Compass, Equatorial Sextant, written and published by descendants
 * ✅ Removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you are going to include that family tree, it needs reliable sourcing to pass GAC. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Added Cuttler (1913) inline at the end of top sentence. Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you are going to include that family tree, it needs reliable sourcing to pass GAC. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Added Cuttler (1913) inline at the end of top sentence. Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * YouTube likes this well enough that they copied you - they published the lead paragraph on August 20, 2020.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * Commons is questioning the copyright of W A Burt typographer.jpg and has a note "This file, along with all our other photos of Burt's Typographer, are of very questionable copyright status, as first noticed during a GA review over on enwiki" - I'm not sure which GA review they are referring to, since this one is GA1
 * ✅ Replaced with another. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replaced with another. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)