Talk:Harlan Page Davidson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harlan Page Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030502/http://alumni.sjnma.org/page/page.cfm?categoryid=6&pageid=14 to http://alumni.sjnma.org/page/page.cfm?categoryid=6&pageid=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harlan Page Davidson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 03:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll take the lead on this review. Etriusus (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a remarkably interesting topic, the page appears to be stable and predominantly written by Doug Coldwell. I'll begin with a few cursory notes then move on to specification. My preliminary assessment is that the format seems a bit strange but otherwise it looks good.

1. It is reasonably well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout, and word choice.

The writing is excellently done, there are a number of clarifications I went ahead and made but these were minor and didn't warrant pinging you on. I would prefer a bit of a layout change in some sections (see G.3 for more details). Etriusus (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; All inline citations are from reliable sources;

It contained no original research;

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

There appears to be no noticeable instances of original research in this section, I will take a second pass through the article prior to fully checking off that portion. There were a small number of reference issues that do need to be addressed. The strange format of the Ref and Footnote section isn't failing criteria per se but should be cleaned up before this article will qualify for Featured status. Etriusus (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic;

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

The lack of content in the personal life section holds this section back from full marks. This issue is both an aesthetic and a coverage problem. My recommendation is to merge this information with the Midlife section, maybe also including the achievements section as well. I'm impartial on the achievement section so I'll let you go with either option (1. merging it, 2. leave it as a stand-alone piece) Etriusus (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

4. It has a neutral point of view

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

This one almost goes without saying, there are no biases noted Etriusus (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

5. It is stable,

It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Page is stable, no ongoing edit wars. It's impressive how much you've expanded this article. Etriusus (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pics seem good to me. I'm actually impressed on what you managed to dig up in terms of photos.Etriusus (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• My initial assessment: excellently written, stable, and nearly ready for GA status.

Recommendations

1) The designation between Midlife, Degrees and Honors, and Personal Life sections is a bit cluttered, either these should be condensed into fewer sections or reorganized into chronological order. 'Degrees and Honors' can be justified as its own section but 'Personal Life' should either be expanded or merged into the surrounding text.

 Done

2) Can you repair the link for this source? "Northwestern Military and Naval Academy". Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Illinois. November 20, 1935. p. 20.

 Done

3)The section 'Societies and Clubs' is unsourced, you list 'Dodge, Grenville M. (1898). Norwich University; Her History, Graduates, Roll of Honor. Rumford Press.' prior to the list of clubs provided but I cannot find the actual text referencing what clubs he was involved with.

 Done

4) Due to this individual serving as the founder and president of Northwestern Military and Naval Academy, this page may additionally fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. This is outside the scope of a GA review but I considered it important enough to mention.

I took care of this, the article class won't matter since this article will pass after edits are finished. Etriusus (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks for review. I get started on the issues as soon as possible. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Etriusus: All Issues have been addressed. Can You take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI It so happens that I have created an article on his son Royal Page Davidson that I submitted GAN 11 May 2021. It is related history on the Northwestern Military and Naval Academy. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, well done on this article. Since I'm here I might as well go ahead and hit that other GAN page posted. Etriusus (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

I removed all the images from the article due to unclear copyright status. None of the dates specify whether it was the publication or creation date, nor do the stated sources (i.e. "Northwestern Military Academy publication", "Handout brochure") provide enough information for another editor to be able to verify that the images are freely licensed in the United States. The field for source publication should give as much information as possible, including author, date, title, and a page number or url. Etriusus Thanks for reviewing but it's also necessary to check image copyrights. If you're ever unsure about a licensing issue, I can help. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Thank you for catching that error on my part. I will reach out to the photo uploader (who is also the nominator) and see if we can fix those images. Just a heads up, now that I have looked over it fully, the same error was made on Royal Page Davidson, another article I reviewed. I will work to resolve this and get the pictures back up if possible. I have very sorry about that mistake. Going forward, I will try to not make it again. Etriusus (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it's an easy thing to miss. As I said, I'm happy to help with any image licensing questions. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)