Talk:Foy–Breguet telegraph/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811, thanks very much for reviewing. As you have probably seen, there was a previous review that stalled because I was not able to find the time to deal with the issues raised. Hopefully, I have now addressed these – the main addition being an extensive "Operation" section. SpinningSpark 14:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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.	Prose is good! I like your style. I note that you prefer two spaces after a full stop to one, but that's no problem. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
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. Some paragraphs have only one citation, but that's acceptable if it is indeed entirely sourced from one, reliable place.
	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).	Pass, sources look good, reliable and authoritative.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No violations detected. Some sources offline - to what extent they can be checked, are fine. Assume good faith for the rest. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No significant areas of missing coverage found, after first GA review expansion.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Level of detail is good. For a slightly technical subject it's accessible to the general reader.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, most work done in March.
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.	Change "Display" to "Appearance" in first caption - "Display" raises some questions, isn't precise. But it is the display part of the apparatus. Why is that not precise? It is no more the whole telegraph than your computer display is the whole computer. SpinningSpark 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I see your point - but to a lay person, the use of that word is a little confusing. Let's rephrase if we can - would something like "Display box of the Foy-Breguet telegraph" or "Signal display box" be accurate? As currently written, to a casual reader it is unclear that the word "display" applies to the object in the image, and not the image itself. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Typo in second caption - "opertor" to "operator" Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ganesha811: are you waiting for something from me before closing? I'm not trying to hurry you up, but it is odd that this is still open. SpinningSpark 18:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark, hi! You're definitely trying to hurry me up, but that's not a problem. :) I hadn't seen that you had updated the caption on the first image - that was the only outstanding issue. Now that I see that that's been addressed, I'll close the review. Thanks for the nudge. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)