Talk:Massie Wireless Station

Massie Wireless Station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 6, 2021. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Rhode Island Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Rhode Island portal This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Massie Wireless Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ballpointbiro (talk · contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm an amateur radio enthusiast so I loved reading this article! It's really good, it just needs a few issues addressing. Things to improve are in italics. Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks! I'll leave a quick note and work on the other points over the weekend. --mikeu ^talk 19:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballpointbiro: I think I've addressed the issues but please let me know if there is anything else that could use improvement. --mikeu ^talk 13:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job on the article, I'm very happy to give it good article status now! Best regards, Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0 - Copyvio[edit]

Earwig reports 38.7% similarity total, the main culprit is the lead section which is copied from amp.blog.shops-net.com/36682259/1/infrastructure-completed-in-1907.html. The lead section needs rewriting to address this.

It looks like that site copied the bulk of this article to [1] without proper CC attribution. --mikeu ^talk 19:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They also used the photo that I took 2 years ago and embedded it in the site using a link to wikimedia. --mikeu ^talk 13:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, sorry I didn't look closely enough at that site to establish that. Your lead section is spot on; provides a good summary of the article without being excessively long. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Writing[edit]

A - Prose, spelling, grammar
- The prose flows well and is in good encyclopaedic style. I think it is rich enough in technical detail to satisfy someone casually interested in the topic without drowning them in jargon. No spelling or grammatical mistakes.

B - Lead section, layout, words to watch, fiction, lists
- See Copyvio for lead section. The layout is logical and follows the MOS, and the article does not contain any words or phrases to watch. The lists in the article are relevant and neatly formatted in tables.

2 - Verifiability[edit]

A - References
- All the references are relevant and work correctly (no broken links).

B - Citations
- Inline citations are where they need to be, and page numbers are provided where neccessary.

C - Original research
- There are no unsupported points or original research in the article.

D - Copyvio
- See section 0

3 - Coverage[edit]

A - Coverage
- The coverage on the topic is good. In the future it might be nice to add a short section of background describing the state of radio technology at the time. Not required for GA, but I think it would be good to give the casual reader some context.

That's a good idea. There was a fierce competition between Massie, DeForrest, and Marconi. All of them raced to bring more innovative technology to market. --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a fascinating time in radio history. I just wonder about the aliens 110 lightyears away having to listen to all those spark-gap transmitters firing off! Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B - Focus
- The article doesn't wander off topic, it is clear and concise.

4 - Neutrality[edit]

The article does not deal with any contentious issues, and presents the facts in a balanced way.

5 - Stability[edit]

The article is stable and not subject to any edit wars.

6 - Illustration[edit]

A - Copyright
- All illustrations and linked media are either in the public domain or were created by Wikipedians, no issues here.
B - Relevancy, captions
- Most of the images are relevant, and the captions concise and informative. However the main text of the article is "sandwiched" between an image and the infobox (see MOS:SANDWICH). I also think that the number of images should be reduced; the gallery at the bottom, while interesting, is probably not neccessary in the article. I think the Wikimedia Commons collection linked at the bottom of the page is a more appropriate place for these images.

I trimmed it down to the more essential images of the building and equipment. I changed the placement. --mikeu ^talk 20:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Like I said I think all of the pictures were relevant and interesting, it's always hard to choose just a couple and you've done a great job. The page looks a lot cleaner now. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]