Talk:Matthew Lyon/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Ran Checklinks - references look good to go. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran copyvio tool - there is high commonality with Lyon's official [bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000545 Congressional biography]. The various phrases in question need to be paraphrased or put into the editor's own words. Run the copyvio tool to see what needs to be edited. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edits wars. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
The portrait of Lyons in the infobox is lacking the proper permissions. A couple of things: It would seem to me that since Lyons is this would qualify as fair-use but the portrait was painted in 1945 (after an older original) so it is possible the artist of this portrait is still alive and then we start running into public domain (creators lifetime+ x number of years etc) issues. Also, the photo of the portrait was the uploader's "own work" but the portrait itself is not. This image's parameters/permissions need to be fixed. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am going to do one or two more proofreading-readthroughs to see if there's anything I missed. Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congats - it's a GA. Thanks for all your hard work with the corrections & adjustments. Shearonink (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

@MisterCake: This Review is on hold until the present commonality between this article and Lyon's official Congressional biography is adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited a bit. Cake (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your adjustments. Most of the issues have been taken care of - there are still some common phrases between this article and the Congressional bio but sometimes the sky is blue. Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things[edit]

Doing what I thought was a last read through before finishing up my Review, I realized that there are some unsourced statements. These will need to be referenced or removed before I can finish up my Review.

One of Lyon's descendants is the American operatic baritone Sherrill Milnes (this according to Milnes' autobiography, American Aria). [unsourced, needs a citation/reference]
The first paragraph in the "Imprisonment for sedition" section has no references (especially about the "[Adams'] pretense of going to war with France"). Also, there are mentions in that section about the trial but no particular facts about it (like where/when, who was the presiding judge and so on).
This last one is a nicety and not strictly part of the GA criteria but I noticed that 1789 Vergennes Gazette is used as a reference several times. A couple of things: 1)Is this newspaper available in an online version anywhere? 2)It would be nice to know where the copy is held(library, museum, etc) that was used as a reference.

Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix the first two worries. Pretty sure Gazette came from proquest, and UVM's Bailey-Howe library probably has some of the newspapers. Cake (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine - and like I said the additional Vergennes Gazette info is a nicety not a requirement. Shearonink (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.