Talk:Frank Fowler Loomis/GA3

GA Review

Passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Please note that I may make recommendations that go beyond the scope of the GA criteria. These are intended only as material for further development, and will not affect the success or failure of this nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Overall, the article is overillustrated. Reformatting as a gallery to showcase his inventions will probably help avoid the abundance of whitespace created by the current format.
File:Frank F Loomis 1915.jpg - The original uploader had a history of copyvios. Have you been able to independently confirm that this was indeed published in 1915?
File:Fire alarm box.jpg - Would the patent illustration itself not be made by Loomis? Maybe the annotations are a US Government work, but...
File:Frank F Loomis with paddy wagon.jpg - What proof do we have of publication before 1929? If it was unpublished, {{PD-US-unpublished}} will work better.
File:Akron police wagon.jpg - What proof do we have of publication before 1929? If it was unpublished, {{PD-US-unpublished}} will work better.

Prose

and built the world's first police van. ... In 1899, Loomis would build the world's first police van, - This is repetitive
minuteman at a steamer in 1870 - Would a minuteman be at or on a steamer?
Loomis married on July 10, 1879, to Barbara Grad, in Akron. - This is too short to stand on its own
"paddy wagon" - Is it worth having this term, given that it may be derived from an ethnic slur?
Loomis of E. York Street in Akron was the inventor of this car.[15] - This just repeats information that was supplied previously
Overall, the patrol car discussion feels like it could beneficially refactored.
It was originally established by his idea in 1936 and in the first 50 years only three firefighters received the award - Nix "by his idea". You already said he established it.
Overall, prose is rather rough. In an article this short, that is a big detriment.

Sources

The detail focuses mostly on his inventions rather than his life. Is there much more about Loomis the person?
Not a GA criterion, but watch your ref formatting. I see duplicated quotation marks, for example.

Conclusion

Prose needs some heavy massaging, and the images need reworking, but there are some good bones here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the File:Frank F Loomis with paddy wagon.jpg image: I found one on Commons that's pretty much the same thing: File:Polizeifahrzeug der Stadtpolizei Akron, Ohio, 1899.jpg. It has the year of publication in the title, being 1899. I also fixed some of the redundant wording you mentioned and removed a usage of the "paddy wagon" phrase. I still included the fact that they were called "paddy wagons" so people reading the sources don't get confused. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OpalYosutebito; unfortunately without a source showing proof of publication, we can't say for certain that it was published. It could have sat in a museum for decades until it was uploaded online. I did offer an alternative which is still policy compliant. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. As for the image in the infobox, it came from this source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/akron-evening-times/18114863/ (I'm mainly saying this as a note to ourselves. I'm currently rearranging some stuff) - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the prose, I didn't get past the lede before I saw redundancy still there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see duplicated quotation marks? By the way, I found a source for the police patrol car that was taken in 1899: https://www.clevelandpolicemuseum.org/news/cleveland-police-ambulance-service/ - OpalYosutebito (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Childress source. As for the Police Museum Image, please keep in mind that publication is not the same as creation. The template I mentioned above works off creation (and thus applies in this instance). Publication means made available to broader audiences, usually through reproduction or dissemination of the item. For example, we have a newspaper showing that Loomis' portrait was published in 1915, but we don't have any magazines including the photograph of the police to show it was published; we just know it was created in 1899. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way: The Diary of a Young Girl was created between 1942 and 1944. However, it was only published in 1947. The same situation appliles to these images: we have date of creation, but not date of publication. Fortunately, they're old enough that they'd be PD even with that... just with a different template. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! I'm not too great with settling copyright issues, but I'll still clean up what I can. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Crisco 1492! I added {{PD-US-unpublished}} to File:Akron police wagon.jpg; as you said before, it was taken in 1899 but that doesn't mean there's proof that it was actually published. I also "trimmed the fat" on some of the more redundant parts of the article. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Opal, that should have been on the Commons page for both files. I've done that. I'll take another look at the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I must've gotten the files mixed up, then. The one on Commons looks like the one on the English wiki... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've looked over. I reworked the lede a little. I do feel like the police wagon section could use a bit more work, but as it stands it does meet the criteria "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;". I do note that the deleted copyvio version had some information not in this article. Might be worth asking an admin to provide some insight into what the previous version of this article had that this one does not. But those are both areas for further consideration; I believe the GA criteria are met, and will be passing this article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2024 (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.