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 Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZombiUwU (talk · contribs) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Good day, TwoScars. I will be picking up and conducting the review for this article. I feel it is necessary to inform you that this is my first time conducting such a review, though I doubt that will be an issue. I look forward to reading this article. I will ping you once my review has been completed. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Questions and Comments

[edit]
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I will default to you on this.

Lead

[edit]
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good, they aren't necessarily key people.
  •  Resolved Sounds good. Prob should have just fixed this my self lol.

Background

[edit]

I forgot to save and had to redo this section ;-;

  •  Resolved Sounds good. I agree with your thought about how it foreshadows the discovery of other sources.
  • I was talking about moving the mention that plant's number of pots was often used to describe a plant's capacity to a note so that It could be more directly connected to the usage of pots later in the article, Note 3 and its preceding sentence are fine. I looked at the edits and it seems to be fine now, I do agree that it might make sense to have in the background section but I am not sure about having it there and in a note.  Resolved
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good.

Startup

[edit]
  •  Resolved Sounds good, but if you feel it fits better to get rid of the "Railroad" please do so.
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I probably should have done this myself.

Overall this section is pretty good though sometimes the language is a little bit like a list of disconected events.

Golden era

[edit]
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  •  Resolved Sounds good. No need for giant footnotes I was more concerned about providing context for the market which I think this does. My only concern is that the parenthetical statements might end up being considered original research.

Exceptional art glass

[edit]

Wow, this stuff is pretty! I think I might go after one of these vases for a decorative piece. That is if I can find one that I can afford.

Talent provider

[edit]
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I think the context is important for the reader's understanding, if it is too much for this section you could move some to the background or turn it into a note.
  • Skip this if you don't think it's pertinent, I am going to default to you on this as you have far greater knowledge of the glass industry than I do.
  •  Resolved Looks good.

Sources Spotcheck

[edit]

Plagiarism Check

[edit]

Looks good with a low score and no obvious copyright violations. [1]

Chart

[edit]
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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
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.