Talk:Conestoga wagon/GA1
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
Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 11:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I aim to check this out this weekend. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima Just checking in, will you be able to start the review shortly? PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yep! Was planning on starting today. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Alrighty, see you then. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, ended up dealing with some other stuff tonight and didnt get around to this. Will be able to tomorrow. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I can wait for the time being. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, ended up dealing with some other stuff tonight and didnt get around to this. Will be able to tomorrow. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Alrighty, see you then. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yep! Was planning on starting today. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Prose
[edit]- Lede quite solid. A bit on the larger size, but for an article this big it's all good.
- Conestoga River isn't linked in the Origin section.
- I feel the alternative name for covered wagons might go better in their first mention.
- Description section extremely solid. Only possible change I'd make would be removing the subheading "General characteristics", as that's what would already be assumed by "Description" without a subheading.
- I don't quite know what a running gear is - is there a good place to link it, or a way to shortly describe what that does?
- Extremely minor but I'd just wikilink the "wagon jack" portion of the "Conestoga wagon jack" image caption
- Production section good.
- I feel there might be a bit too much context for what the Pennsylvania Dutch are here; I think that paragraph could be cut down to just a couple sentences.
- Image caption beginning "The spread of railroads" should end with a period.
- Whenever you have "(Town name), Pennsylvania", you should put a comma after Pennsylvania if it's not the end of a sentence.
- Legacy section good.
- Implemented all of the above suggestions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Images
[edit]- All appear properly licensed. Not a requirement, but alt-text would be nice for accessibility reasons.
- Added alt text. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]- Well formatted, with generally high quality sources all around. A couple inconsistencies:
- You use a different kind of ISBN, as well as a superfluous OL, for Smith (1988)
- Technically, Ellis et. al 2023 isn't a journal article, but a report.
- In lieu of an ISBN, maybe Reist (1975) and Shumway & Frey (1968) should be given OCLCs?
- You're not consistent about which journal/book sources have "retrieved on", and I don't think that's really something that gets used outside of website and online news sources.
- Removed some instances of "access-date" and retained them in "other sources" where material is archived. I removed the OL for Smith (1988) but am unsure as to what I should do regarding the ISBN. Implemented everything else. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- A couple sources don't pass the sniff test.
- Clark (2017) isn't actually academically published, and I don't think Clark hits subject matter expert status; I don't think that's appropriate.
- I decided to replace it with different verified citations in all but one area since he did cite his sources most of the time. I kept it in the end because he's the only person who touches on its 21st century relevance in some form, but I can remove that as well if you wish. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clark (2017) isn't actually academically published, and I don't think Clark hits subject matter expert status; I don't think that's appropriate.
- Spot check to come.
- Shumway & Frey 1968, pp 14–16: All 3 usages check out to me.
- Shumway & Frey 1968, pp 152–153: Checks out.
- Shumway & Frey 1968, p 237: Checks out
- Shumway & Frey 1968, pp 87–108: Wide page spread, but checks out.
- Terry & Robertson 1985, pp 25–27: checks out
- All the Berkebile 1959 cites check out.
- Ditto on Breen 1997.
Spot check looks good to me, and everything else seems straightened out; this seems ready for promotion. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lovely. If there is nothing else to do for the review, thanks for conducting it and good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
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.