Wikipedia:Peer review/Clarence Chesterfield Howerton/archive2

Clarence Chesterfield Howerton
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominated this again at GA, as I feel that I have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review. I previously listed this for peer review; but got only one response from a plea at the Teahouse, but I would like a more thorough review this time, so that I can pass when I nominate this as a GAN again. =
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 12:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from LT910001
Hi, thanks for your work on this article. I think this article is sufficiently well-written to be considered for GA, and has been expanded since the nomination. The verifiability issue is still notable, especially the reference to the two blogs. I would suggest to rectify this, which in my mind would be the major issue preventing nomination, you could directly cite the original article in "The White Tops" Sept./Oct. 1992, as noted on both blog posts (and provided in photocopy form on one). You can provide a link in that citation to the photocopied variant, but unfortunately a blog can't be considered a reliable source. Other than that, I would say that this is a well-written article for which GA is certainly achievable. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done this. Do you think it would pass a GA review now ? Thanks for the review, Mat  ty  .  007  08:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will respond on or after the 14th (sorry). LT910001 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Back! Thanks for waiting. I agree that this is very close to GA standard, and has definitely improved. I am not too sure about the citation standards for photographs. I feel that the citation standards for the images may have to improve. This would be a citation for a website and then the original source. For example "Orig '34 Texas Giant Jack Earle Major Mite Midget Photo". Worth Point. Retrieved 14 November 2013 citing New York Daily News Archive (1932), "Major Mite with Jack Earle"." Other than this, I think this would be ready for GA status, and would encourage you to sort out other issues during the nomination. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, attempted fix. Mat  ty  .  007  18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes from Mr. V

 * The hatnote is a redlink.
 * Removed. Mat  ty  .  007
 * Can the lead be expanded at all?
 * Attempted. Mat  ty  .  007
 * Some of the sections are so short that they could probably be put into other sections.
 * Attempted merge of one that could be, the last section I think should remain independent. Mat  ty  .  007
 * Along those lines, perhaps we should get rid of the one-sentence paragraphs if possible.
 * There is only one, which I think can't really be merged. Mat  ty  .  007
 * You might want to put an access date in your sources.
 * Doing. Mat  ty  .  007

Otherwise looks pretty good. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (t – c)   02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! : do you think that this would pass a GA? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Matty.007:  It's looking better. I do agree with the comments in the last GAN - it's a bit brief. A few hundred more words would really help, I think. Is there anything else in the sources? —  Mr. V (t – c)   19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had a thorough look when creating the article, and put in as much as I could, adding 175 words, but that was as much as I could add. I have seen shorter GAs, so would this be an issue? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Matty.007:  I think your chances are good; you've done pretty well with what you have. All depends on the reviewer, I suppose. Good luck!—  Mr. V (t – c)   04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Mat  ty  .  007  19:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
(t) Josve05a  (c)  23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)