Talk:Grant's Tomb/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 06:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Removed a possible wikilink mistake. See below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead contains only cited info in article, layout good. No other issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Contains three sections that follow layout guideline. Fixed a cs1 maint issue. All good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything seems to have a citation.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Uses material in the public domain. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Definitely covers everything, unless people want to learn the geological history of the granite used.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Despite it's length, reasonably the sections themselves are small-ish so creating any subarticles would be unnecessary. My humble recommendation is that if any future expansions should exceed the total readable word count of 15,000, a subarticle detailing the history should be made with of course keeping a summary of that article on this page.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems neutral enough overall. Both positive and negative reception is provided.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Apart from minor copy edits, article is stable enough for review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Either public domain or from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In relevant sections with suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

1a[edit]

While representatives from other states favored relocating the president's remains, New York representative were opposed. Were there multiple NY representatives or just one? If just one, I'd add their name.

It was several representatives, but Picone only lists two of them. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The facade is modeled after the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus with Persian elements. I feel like this sentence cuts off abruptly. "with incorporated Persian elements"? Something along those lines.

Since the source doesn't actually mention Persian elements, I removed that bit. I also replaced the source with Kahn and Picone. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2b[edit]

Spot-check: 1, 14, 27, 32, 47, 50, 67, 75, 86, 98, 101, 112, 128, 134, 140, 151, 163, 176, 187, 192, 206, 215, 227, 231, 245, 253, 267, 276, 288, 293, 303, 311, 324, 334, 342, 350, 362, 379, 386, 391, 402, 414, 420, 436, 441, 459, 467, 479, 483, 491, 500, 514, 525, 539, 541, 548

(27) Couldn't find any mention of the headquarters being there in the book. (I am using the Scribd version and searched the term "Lower Manhattan")
- According to the book, the headquarters was first at Liberty and Nassau Streets (which is in the modern-day Financial District of Lower Manhattan), then at 146 Broadway (just down the block from the original HQ). I did not think that summarizing the general geographic location would be controversial, as I explained both locations fully in a footnote, but I've removed this nonetheless. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well if that's the case, feel free to re-add that information, I forgot it was explained in the notes. Sorry! (Though perhaps that note could be attached to that sentence.) 123Writer ^talk 06:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(98) About $1,000 each came from the royalties from Grant's memoirs and a puzzle contest at the end of 1886. Couldn't find in either source how much royalty money was put into the fund.
- Picone 2021, pp. 104–105, and Kahn 1980, pp. 40–41, both state that Grant donated $987.50... which apparently was from Ulysses S. Grant's back pay, not from royalties. I've fixed this. Thanks for the review, 1TWO3Writer. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! 123Writer ^talk 06:08, 21 August 2023 (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.