Talk:Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr./GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Will start reviewing shortly. Cheers, Ricardiana (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1: well-written[edit]

Looks very good for the most part. A couple of small comments:

"and is now considered a member of the Fireside Poets." --Speaking as an ignorant reader, does this mean that the Fireside Poets are a posthumously-denoted group, or that they were recognized in their day but OWH was not at the time considered a member? (I realize you'll make this clear later, but it should be clear to a general reader in the lead.)

Good point; I've removed the "now", but if it's still confusing, let me know! María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Written fifteen years after The Autocrat, this work's tone was more mellow and nostalgic than its predecessor." - Seems POV - do you have a source for this assessment? Ricardiana (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Tilton 237, which follows the quote that follows this statement. I've connected the two sentences with a semi-colon, so hopefully this makes the shared source clear. María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2 - factually-accurate and verifiable[edit]

Excellent here. Ricardiana (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage[edit]

A look through Google Books and MLA shows nothing important missing. Excellent here also.

Criterion 4: neutral[edit]

Neutral - good.

Criterion 5: stable[edit]

Very stable and a nice collaborative atmosphere.

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images[edit]

Looks good here, too.

Verdict[edit]

Excellent work on the part of everyone involved. Congratulations on putting together a Good Article! Ricardiana (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that was fast! I expected us to wait at least a month. Thanks so much for the speedy review. María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]