Talk:Rossa Matilda Richter/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Esprit15d (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. It's a great article and really needs very little editing.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Esprit15d. It's been so long since I nominated it! :) My own feeling is that it's pretty solid for GA and I'm thinking in the direction of FAC. I say that not to influence the GA review, of course, but because beyond the GA review, if you notice any "bonus" items that would be good to consider before sending it off to FAC, I'd appreciate hearing about them. From the look of it, you have more experience in FAC than I do (which is to say, a nonzero amount :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep that in mind.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Richter returned home to London in 1873.: There should be a reference at the conclusion of a paragraph since we don't know which reference that fact is drawn from.

Done

Please use {{Cite sign}} to format the citation for "Zazel, shot from a cannon' at the Royal Aquarium, London."

The citation is to a British Library page with information about the sign rather than the sign itself. Just noticed the link wasn't working, though, so updated it with an archive.

Great.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loyal was projected from the cannon and caught by Zuila: The word "projected" doesn't seem to be used correctly here. Perhaps "ejected?"

Projected seems to be typical in the sources (definition 2 here -- "to throw out or cast forward; to shoot forth"). It seems to better capture the idea of being not just removed from inside the cannon but being sent flying. The text of the patent for the cannon describes it as an "Apparatus for Projecting Persons and Articles into or through the Air". I'd be inclined to agree with you about it not being a terribly common word, but I used it because it does seem standard in the sources.

Understandable.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing it multiple times, a writer for ... The author went on to describe ... and noted that she counted among her fans future king Edward VII, who reportedly attended two of her shows when he was Prince of Wales.: The gender of the writer is never specified, so the "she" doesn't have a clear antecedent. Either include a name for the author, or replace "she" with Richter.

Done

What is the justification for redlinking George Oscar Starr?

Ah. I found some good sources about him, including multi-page illustrated spreads in major publications. I put it on my always-too-long to do list way back when and haven't gone back. I tend to redlink when I'm absolutely certain the person would meet notability guidelines for an article. If it's a sticking issue I don't have a big problem removing it, though.

Nope. That's a good enough reason for me.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will resume again later.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: Just a bump regarding the above, and to make sure you weren't waiting for me to start in on the above feedback (I would presume wait until you're done with the first pass of the review). No rush or anything, though -- it's been the better part of a year since I nominated it, after all, so I can wait. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my absence. I've had a difficult few weeks. I will continue now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: No problem. I've gone ahead and responded to the notes above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "(emphasis in the original)." You only need to provide notation if you alter the quote.
She told The Bystander that at some point she asked her manager, likely Farini, whether she should donate Watts' portrait to the National Portrait Gallery. Are every "she" in the sentence the same person? If not, it is not clear clear who is who. You might consider adding a name or two for clarification, especially whoever is not the sister.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are certainly not required, but you may consider one, since they provide information that is pulled to Google and is a quick source a lot of people value.
The images are all great.
The citations look good.
Categories are fine.
I have to commend you or any other editors on the strong work on keeping the article NPOV. Proper attribution of opinions and subjective material is done superbly, which is rare.
Once that sentence with the pronouns is addressed, I'm prepared to pass the article. Great work!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: Thanks very much. I changed the first "she" to "Richter". (Presuming it's straightforward enough to determine that the Richter we mention isn't the sister). The sister isn't really involved aside from chaperoning. I didn't actually see much information about the sister outside of that one statement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and regarding the infobox: I started to make one a while back, but stopped when I didn't feel like I could add all that much information. I turned my attention to the Wikidata item instead (also used by third parties :) ). I wouldn't object if you or someone wanted to put one in if you felt confident it could be fairly well developed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass the article. Congratulations. Very interesting topic well covered.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]