Talk:Ames Almanack/GA1

GA Review

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

Overview of GA Review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (no original research):
It is broad in its coverage
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (copyright tagged and captioned): b (appropriate use; lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

The Ames almanack article is generally sound. I've brought up a few minor points for you to take a look at. In some respects, the article leaves the reader wondering. I've talked about that more below (broadness). Thanks, Whitehorse1 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent work on addressing the points raised. It's certainly in line to pass as a GA; a couple of quick further thoughts:

Well written requirement

* "It is estimated that Franklin's publication had" As-phrased it sounds weasely.

~~Similarly, as-written the Roger Sherman sentence is very vague.~~

The lead contains information not in the main body of article (WP:LEAD), while it should instead serve as an introduction summarizing important aspects from the main body. Short articles are often of insufficient length to justify a full lead section. I'd say this one, while a small article, has probably enough content to justify one though.

The lead/opening could be expanded with a mention of the father-son authorship and of the later reflection of contemporary political changes. I'll leave that up to you—it won't affect its attaining good article status. Whitehorse1 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure what to do with this to be honest. Should there be a general info section added to the base? I am at a loss... -- Lucas20 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not essential, just an option. With shorter articles a lead summarizing the main points looks silly where it forms a large percentage of the article. This article might be of sufficient length to warrant one; really, you could argue either way. Regardless, it's a good little article. In fact, it is, a Good Article. –Whitehorse1 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* You need to wikilink uncommon or jargon terms like 'antifederalist'.

~~There is quite a lot of passive voice in the article. You can often strengthen phrasing by rewriting it to use active voice.~~

* Some terms appear peacockish: 'prominent', 'well-known'. Please take another look at those. * Sometimes on Wikipedia you need to provide a little context, to try to avoid systemic bias. Here, the article reads "By 1775, the almanac published a manual on how to make gunpowder so that every man could supply himself 'with a sufficiency of that commodity.'" – the basis for which presumably relates to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The article should probably briefly clarify though, to help readers unfamiliar with why an astronomical publication, according to a paragraph about national identity, would tell its audience how to make gunpowder.

Broadness

The 2nd sentence states it's infrequently mentioned, despite its larger circulation. However, the article says nothing about why it failed, or why it was largely forgotten. It strikes me as a specialized area of study, but I would think somebody must have published something about that. Are you able to expand the article to include something on that?

It didn't fail, it just failed to be noted by history. This is likely because of Franklin's other successes. However, that is highly interpretive and not really verifiable. Perhaps remove? -- Lucas20 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that seems logical. The scarcity of subsequent coverage despite its popularity made me wonder as to the causes. Like many moments in history though, the details likely passed unrecorded. It's probably best to keep it in. Whitehorse1 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* When you comment on the format in Ames' Almanack format being used elsewhere, it lacks meaning because you haven't actually given any description of what that format is.

Ames senior died 1764. His son Nathaniel, an antifederalist supporter, continued writing the almanac for 11 years. In 1775, the final year of the almanac, it reflected and promoted the concept of national American identity. I wondered if a mention of the contrast between Nathaniel junior's personal views and those elements covered in the work during its final year of publication might be worth adding—to link those parts of the article? That's if something verifiable is available of course. Whitehorse1 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

* Ideally, recent journals should include ISSNs.

~~The "Secondary sources" subsection is strange. It contains a single item, but many references immediately above it are themselves secondary sources.~~

Final comments

You've fixed all the little jarring points that needed fixing above. There may well be things left unsaid in the article, those are, however, lost to the annals of the past. When I conclude a review, I generally like to make suggestions for improvement post-GA. I don't have much to suggest here. One idea is to add an External links section with a link to a copy of the almanac, on the site the image is from, e.g.:

[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/almanac/pdf/almanack1749.pdf "An Astronomical Diary, or An Almanack for...1749"] ({{PDFlink|6.7 MB }}) ''Time, Tide, and Tonics: The Patent Medicine Almanac in America''. History of Medicine Division of the [[National Library of Medicine|National Library of Medicine]] (NLM)

A further suggestion (the image is public domain so it's not essential) is adjust the image description/source attribution to link to the exhibition section of the NLM website, to act as a 'further reading' portal. The Ames almanack article deserves to be a Good Article in my view. –Whitehorse1 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]