Talk:Union (automobile)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Will review this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

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:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Specifically, it fails the MOS for layout and words to watch; details are below

2. 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Was very close to quickfailing it; however, the problems can be easily fixed.

General notes

• Copyvio percentage is 0%, so no chance of plagiarism.
• Citation check:
  • 1 - I do not believe that the source verifies the statement

• Copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• • 2 - can you provide the exact quote?

• Copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• • 9 - good
  • Referencing requires some work.

• Copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Problems

• On the whole, prose quality is extremely poor. From the very first sentence " a vehicle that came about from John William Lambert", the article is consistently wordy, verbose, and unclear. The transmission section lacks full stops. In addition, the article includes trivial details that read like an advertisement—or, at least, such an advertisement as can be produced for a car a century old. The article needs a thorough copyedit, and the nominator should be more than capable of providing it. I am putting this article on hold for seven days, while he has a chance to respond. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I'll start working on improvements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• @AirshipJungleman29: I aimed to do the improvements you suggested to bring this up to Good Article standards. Can you do another reading and if you have further suggestions I'll work on those improvements. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Prose issues

There are still substantial prose issues. I will copyedit the article myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Further issues

• @Doug Coldwell:, I have substantially copyedited the article to bring it up to standards. Please take a look at what I have done.

• Looks good.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Numerous words in the body need to be wikilinked, primarily engineering terms.

• Issue done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• • The infobox is {{infobox company}}, please change to {{Infobox automobile}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Issue done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Promotion

@Doug Coldwell:, congratulations! Promoting now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Final Criteria

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:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: