Talk:George H. Steuart (brigadier general)/GA1

GA Review

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

I moved this page to a pagename with a non-capitalized qualifier, per WP:QUALIFIER. For the record, this will be my first GA review, though I've been a member of the ACW task force for several years. I've previously been associated with one GA page, and have recently gotten my first "from scratch" GA. I've asked another more senior reviewer to look over my shoulder during this process.

My first impression is that the article has a little way to go before it's GA class. It is good work on a great subject, and maybe we can help it along.

Reviewer: BusterD (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Infobox is incomplete. Infobox image needs a caption.
   2. Other infobox items which might have entries, given their significance and mention in the article: Unit and/or Commands, Relations (particularly important in this subject's case, many of these Steuarts are themselves notable and have articles)
   3. Per WP:LEDE, the introduction is inadequate to explaining the significance of the subject. On a good article, I'd expect to see 4-8 sentences which summarizes much of subject's life and impact. Look at this link and this one too for a better explanation.
   4. I'd recommend you consider rewriting the early life section. Given the enormous amount we know about the Steuart family, we should be able to know more than just the names and relations in this section. The frequent use of the pronoun "he" is worrisome in this section; it could refer to a lot of Steuarts...
   5. Several sections need expansion or merging: Cross Keys, Second Battle of Winchester, Appomattox..., and After the war. The legacy section in particular needs expansion. He lived for almost 40 years after the war. He was the head of a veterans organization. He probably wrote something, perhaps for the Southern Historical Society papers...
   6. I know I asked you to merge or expand, but I also have an obligation to ask you for good paragraphing of the sections which look big. Please break those large blocks into reasonable paragraphs, many with a solid lead sentences. Sorry if I'm sounding picky; I'm trying to visualize it better. You're doing really good stuff (but I think you're overdoing the images--I think the new "charge" image and the pic of the memorial are just fine, unless you intend to bulk up several sections...).

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   Not Yet

   1. While I prefer citation templates, not everyone uses them, and so I won't show a preference there. I should say however the reason I choose to use templates is that I can better format my citations and remember to get important details. Lots of info is missing here.
   2. It's fine that your print sources aren't online (I'll bet you could find good sources through Google Books search), but your citation for your online source [1] lacks information which is crucial under Wikipedia:Verifiability. The page linked tells the reader exactly where the information came from, and who wrote it, but none of that information is in the citation. Since the page claims it has the author's permission to publish the except online, this isn't a small matter.
   3. For an USMA-related bio, I'd expect to see Cullum used as a source, especially since the whole series is online. Here's a link to one series entry which should help with early military career. I'm nervous about the over-reliance of the article on one family genealogy and a 1998 book about many Gettysburg figures. I'd like to see some citation from Eicher, which you mention, but don't use. I'd like to see a few more easily check-able (read click-able) sources for further verification.
   4. Inconsistent citation formatting is a problem here. You cite the books with "ref name", but your online sources seem formatted haphazardly. The 48th PA site is a particularly bad example.
   5. Look again at the reference list as the reflist template displays it. Look at the way the page numbers are formatted inconsistently. This is just one way I'm still dissatisfied with the citations. You really should better know this page. Should I better explain the use of "ref name"?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   Not Yet

   1. As mentioned in the prose section above, I think we need to balance the three or so years of Confederate service against the other 71 years of the man's life. Either we're saying way too much about the war period, or we're not saying nearly enough about the man.

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Not Yet

   1. I'm not sure how I feel about this. The article seems puffy and doesn't cover the man's life broadly. That the article's main contributor seems to have focused energies on this one series of historical figures makes me wonder whether there's some family history puffing going on (of course, if my great great grandfather was a Confederate general I'd likely be writing an article about him myself...)

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
   1. Per images below, even the infobox image should have an appropriate caption, or an alt caption which allow those only able to read text to have a rough idea of what the image contains

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: