Talk:Peter Muhlenberg Memorial/GA1

GA Review

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: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to pick this up. KJP1 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting going on this, KJP. I'm quite new to the GA review process, and I've been eagerly awaiting some feedback. I appreciate your help. Rockhead126 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The article contains copyright violations – see Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Quick check is fine. Main review to follow. Should take two days maximum. KJP1 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

The prose is of a high standard and I'll be pleased to Pass on this criterion, subject to consideration of the comments/suggestions below.

Lead

"Federalist Era American political figure" - Does a "political figure" differ in any way from a "politician"?

Done. Made the change - I took the initial language from Peter Muhlenberg. There's no difference between the two, at least in this context, but the more straightforward the language, the better, I think.

"included West German ambassador Peter Hermes" - ignore if it's a BR/US thing, but I'd be tempted to call him "the West German ambassador Peter Hermes".
"surrounded on three sides by a low concrete wall" - The technical term for this is an Exedra. We should probably use this as it's, at least in part, an architecture article.

Comment: I do like this proposed change, but is an exedra necessarily semicircular? The wall/bench surrounding the memorial isn't rounded.

Don't think so. Britannica suggests semi-circular or rectangular, [1]. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

History - Background

"leaving a small, triangular piece of land in-between it" - I'm not sure in-between is hyphenated? Wouldn't simply "between" work?

Done.

"the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Epiphany, 16th and U Streets NW," - not getting what the streets are doing here. Is it "the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Epiphany, located on 16th and U Streets NW,"?

Done.

History - Planning

"approved by the United States Congress Joint Committee on the Library and Commission of Fine Arts" - "approved by the United States Congress Joint Committee on the Library and the Commission of Fine Arts"?

Done.

"and a third great-granddaughter of Peter Muhlenberg" - what's a "third" great-granddaughter? Just "great-granddaughter"?

Comment: As in his great-great-great-granddaughter...I'm not a big fan of this myself, but it is the preferred genealogical term.

Noted. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design and location

"Clergyman, Soldier, and Statesman" - not sure why these are capitalised, unless they're titles actually on the monument, which isn't clear from the photos.

Comment: Those are the headings on the plaques aligned with each side of the memorial.

Ah, thought that might be the case. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A low concrete wall" - as in the Lead, I'd call this an exedra.

See above.

"flanks the rear and sides of memorial" - "flanks the rear and sides of the memorial".

Done.

b (MoS):

Not my strongest suit, but it looks fine to me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references)

All very well-sourced.

b (citations to reliable sources):

The Sources are excellent. I've spot-checked them and they're all coming up trumps. Just a few observations,

7/12/14/19/24/33 - any reason why we can't have links to the actual articles, which you helpfully provide elsewhere?

Comment: I accessed these sources, all WaPo articles, via a library subscription to ProQuest's Historical Newspapers database. I didn't provide URLs per Wikipedia:SOURCELINKS.

20 - this links to a Welcome page, rather than the document?

Done: It appears Template:USCongRec has been broken for a while and is not linking properly. I've linked to the proper sources on 20 and 30 manually.

36 - unfortunately this takes me to a subscription page, which I suspect will also be the case for a number of the above. I think the convention is to put a "Subscription required" note in the link where this is the case.

Comment: Hm. I am a subscriber, but, even when I log out of my account, I'm not hitting a paywall. I'd guess that you either hit the free article limit, or it has something to do with international access.

37 - don't know if you're thinking of FAC, but a number of editors there really dislike links to Google Books, as it's a commercial seller. I therefore tend to use Worldcat, [2], unless the Google link actually leads to a book snippet, which it doesn't here.

Done. I switched both of the Google Books links to Worldcat. Good point.

c (OR):

No evidence of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

Earwig comes up fine.

3. It is broad in its scope

a (major aspects)

I think it properly covers the major aspects of the memorial's history and design.

b (focused):

A point here,

"Also close-by are Politics and Prose and Comet Ping Pong, just up Connecticut Avenue." - Not sure the proximity of a bookstore and a pizzeria are particularly relevant to the monument? Presumably there are literally hundreds of businesses close by.

Comment: I get your point. The reason I mentioned these notable nearby businesses was primarily due to just how close they are to the memorial - both within a block. As someone who lives within walking distance from the memorial, I can tell you that many of my D.C. friends couldn't locate Wakefield on a map, but they'd all know where I was talking about if I said it was just down the block from Politics & Prose. This closeness is highlighted in the cited WaPo article. Tell me what you think.

Up to you, certainly not a failing issue. But bear in mind that, while it may well work for mates in D.C., it will be less meaningful for the non-D.C.-based among us! KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly reworded - leaving it in for now. Rockhead126 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

Perfectly neutral.

5. It is stable

Nice and stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

All fine.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Captions fine and the images are great. A minor point - the middle Soldier column image is a little less clear than it might be, due to the light. Nothing to Fail over, but if you have the time, a crisper image would be good. Conversely, the infobox image is a little dark.

Comment. I felt the same way about the Soldier image. I've actually tried multiple times to get a better shot but have thus far been unable due to poor lighting behind the memorial and the limitations of my iPhone 6 camera. I'll try again when I get back into town in a few days. Additionally, I've been in contact with the archivist at St. Paul's about digging up a photo from the memorial's dedication ceremony for use in the article.

As I said, neither's necessary for a Pass but, as you say, I think replacements, if possible, would improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall: Pass/Fail:

I think all that needs to be done is a review of the comments in 2(b) regarding the Sources. Everything else looks great. It's a very nice article and it's been a pleasure to review. I'll put it On Hold, prior to cutting the red ribbon very shortly. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks so much for your help! This has been a fun project to work on. Let me know if you have any more comments before we pop open the champagne. As I said, I'm planning on trying to get a better version of the Soldier image within a week, and I'm still waiting on the St. Paul's archivist to dig up some other images, but I'm not sure either warrants keeping the nomination on hold if the article's good as is. Also, to respond to your comment from earlier, getting an A-class assessment and then moving on to FAC seem like logical steps. I may reach out to a mentor before putting in the nomination myself, but I was wondering if you had any more good advice with that in mind. Rockhead126 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good to go and pleased to Pass. My only piece of advice re. FAC, which was given to me by a very wise editor when I did my first, is that Wikipedia:Peer review can be extraordinarily helpful. Indeed, it was suggested to me that PR can be a more useful step on the road than GAR. The advantage is that, if you are lucky and the stars are aligned, you can get input from a wide range of editors, who will bring expertise in prose, sourcing, MoS, coverage, access etc., in a way that a GAR from an individual editor cannot. I've no experience of A-class assessment, so I can't say what that might bring, but every FA I've done I've put through PR, to the very great benefit of the article. Anyways, all the best and congratulations! KJP1 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2019 (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.