Talk:John W. Beschter/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • I don't usually expect to see references in the lead as everything there should be covered in the main body. So move those awkwardly placed refs out of the lead.
  • "who immigrated " emigrated?
  • Several "he" in the lead, you could afford to repeat Beschter at least once.
  • "he was a pastor " repeat Beschter here too as the subject is uncertain.
  • A few too many "-ing" for me, e.g. "Upon arriving in" -> "Upon his arrival in", "soon began anglicizing" -> "soon began to anglicize" et seq.
    • I've rephrased several of the progressive form verbs. Ergo Sum 00:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the year of his arrival, Beschter" new section altogether, arrival where?
  • "which were comprised by" -> "which comprised"
  • " from Frederick, Maryland to " comma after Maryland.
    • There is no dependent clause in the sentence before "where they arrived," so I don't believe a comma would go there. Ergo Sum 00:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Adams County, Pennsylvania in " ditto.
    • It appears someone preempted me in placed a comma here. Ergo Sum 00:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1820, he was " replace he with Beschter (subject unclear once again).
  • I don't think linking "Polish" to Poland is helpful, we generally avoid linking common geographical terms.
  • "in the late winter of 1829" question, was the winter late or was the resignation late in the winter? Or even then, why is "late" important at all?
    • I've rephrased it to be clearer. It's not a terribly important detail, but I see no especially compelling reason for either its inclusion or exclusion. Ergo Sum 00:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lack of fluency in speaking and inability to write in English[30] (despite the fact that he was competent enough to preach in English);[31] " really awkward phrasing, any chance of a rework?
    • That was a rather messy sentence. I think it's much clearer now. Ergo Sum 00:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "45 students enrolled" why not "45 enrolled students"?
  • "He remained at " subject uncertain, repeat surname again.
  • " of his life.[3] In the last year of his life," repetitive.
  • " (1741—1889)" looks like an em-dash, should be en-dash. Check all.
  • "S.J." is mentioned in the suc-box, but nowhere else that I can tell, what is it?
    • As of now, an editor has removed all the S.J.s from the succession boxes on the basis of MOS:POSTNOM. I do not believe that is a correct application of the policy, which is intended to deal with honorific post-nominals. My logic for including it in the succession boxes was because it shows a continuity of a given office being occupied by members of one order, whereas its usefulness in the article is comparatively less. I will restore the post-nominals to the succession box. If you think they should be included in the text as well, let me know. Ergo Sum 01:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My initial question was really "what does it mean"? But as it's been removed from everywhere besides a ref title, that issue has gone away. If you think it should be re-added, I'll leave it to you, but please do consider that for some of us ignoramuses, S.J. doesn't mean a thing, so at least link it somewhere... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, once again picky stuff, nothing fundamental, almost certainly already GA quality if we just blindly follow the criteria. Hopefully you can take a quick look at these comments and see if you think they're worthy of addressing. I'll place on hold for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thank you for them. Ergo Sum 01:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I'm very satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria (exceeds them, in fact). I commented once more on the "SJ" issue, but that won't stand in the way of me promoting this article to GA. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 5 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_W._Beschter/GA1&oldid=900478151"