Talk:James Rumsey Monument/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 04:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ganesha811, first and foremost, thank you so much for taking the time to engage in this thorough and comprehensive GA review.

• Since your review began, I've taken the steps to address as many of your comments and suggestions as time allows. Regarding the cited maps, I cited both the USGS topographical map and Google Maps, since the latter is easier for users to access, has current street names, and enables users to quickly verify the surrounding locations mentioned in the article. With that said, I am fine with removing this citation if you see fit.
• Per your comment about the Rumseian Society, I am working to replace and remove instances where the Rumseian Society website is cited, so I will be adding additional citations and references in the meantime and should have this completed for your re-review shortly.
• Per your suggestion, I removed the other maps from the infobox, so that only the West Virginia state map appears.
• Per your suggestion, I have updated the Boteler caption so that it is more descriptive of his role in the monument's establishment. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ganesha811, I removed most of the content sourced from the Rumseian Society website where I could not find another source to substantiate that content. However, I did keep some citations from the Rumseian Society, which concern the transition of the monument property from the society to the corporation of Shepherdstown, since the society was directly involved in this transaction, and the society's information on the monument's plaques. Please let me know if this would be acceptable, or if further modification is required. Thank you again for your suggestions and guidance throughout this process. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's ok - thank you for your work. I'm going to go through and do a prose review tonight or tomorrow. My usual practice is just to make small changes and nitpicks myself, and if there's anything big or that you object to, we can discuss it. It saves us both time (hopefully!). Ganesha811 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ganesha811, thank you again for taking the time to perform this thorough review, and I look forward to your changes and any further comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ganesha811, I concur with your edits related to criterion 1a. I also removed several names which were not mentioned throughout the article. Please re-review and let me know if there are any outstanding issues. Thank you again! — West Virginian (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• West Virginian - this article passes GA! Congrats to you and everyone else who worked on it. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.	A few issues of prose/overdetail listed in the section below - I have gone through and made some changes myself, so take a look and see if there are any you don't think are improvements. Pass, issues addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, well-referenced, no citations missing.
	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).	I am a little skeptical of Google Maps being cited, generally, but it is not being used for anything too problematic here. I am not convinced of the reliability of the Rumseian Society page on the monument - not only do they clearly have a vested interest in the subject, it's unclear whether their post is fact-checked, they do not cite sources, they do not describe their membership or credentials, etc etc. The website is cited over 20 times. Many of these citations follow sentences with other citations already attached. Where possible, I would cite to independent sources and remove sentences cited solely to the Rumseian Society. It's essentially a unsourced blog from an involved perspective. No issues from it - just noting an impressive amount of work tracking down and using information from smaller historical newspapers - I know from experience how tough that can be! Pass, issues addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Who is Philip Pendleton? Mentioning his name implies he's significant, but if there is no information available about his role, he doesn't need to be mentioned. Details about Point Pleasant monument are not needed. The lists of Rumseian Society incorporators/members should only include those who have already been mentioned or are further mentioned later - i.e. only those who have some significance in other roles as well. Who is U.S. Martin? Just some guy who brought a claim, which they settled? It's a little confusingly worded right now. Please rewrite to clarify. Same question re: William J. Britner as I had about Philip Pendleton Removed some unneeeded details here and there - please look at the diffs and let me know if there are any changes you object to. Pass, issues addressed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Recent copyedit but no edit wars - good stability. Pass.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not sure about the maps in the infobox. On the first, most detailed map, the red dot is hard to find and the underlying map does not have any marking for the monument. The map of the United States may be *too* zoomed out. My first preference would be for a better local map, but if one is not available, it may be best to stick to the West VA map only. The caption for the Boteler image should mention his connection to the monument / role. Pass, issues addressed.
	7. Overall assessment.