Talk:International Hat Company/Archives/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review: Good article status

I have requested above a peer review of the article to get feedback on neutrality pov, verifiability, concurrence in there being no original research, proper image licensing, etc., before nominating the article. If anyone has any input, it's more than welcome. In the mean time, I will continuing looking for ways to improve the article. Thank you. (Belshay (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Hat Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "During World War II, International Hat developed" - World War II already linked in the lead
    " Among the co-founders of International Harvest Hat was George Tilles, Sr. whose sister Hannah," - comma needed in between "Sr." and "whose"
    "Founder Pellegrino, this would later prove as the height of the expansion of the company in terms of size, productivity, and financial success." - this bit needs a citation
    The latte half of the first paragraph in the Products section needs at least a citation. I couldn't find "By the Gulf War, only certain personnel in the US Navy had the pressed fiber sun helmet as serviceable gear" in any source
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Excellent work with this. It is well written, comprehensive, and the sources all check out. The minor concerns shouldn't interfere, so I'll pass this now. JAGUAR  22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)