Talk:Charles Melville Hays/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Can I suggest you indicate items fixed by comments immediately below the issue, and maybe use the {done} template. I am not a fan of striking things out, as it makes the review more difficult to read at a later date. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References DONE

Most refs are live. Only one dead link.

Ref 9 to encyclopaedia-titanica gives a "page not found" error.
Ref 8 has "Heritage House Publishing Co". Documentation for {cite book} says Co should not be included.
Please check spelling of "encyclopedia" and "Titanica" in all refs. There are several spellings of both.

I have fixed three more that you missed.

Disambiguation - two links to disambiguation pages: DONE

Pomeranian
Royal Victoria Hospital

Images

Portrait would benefit from an approximate date (if known). I also note it is a mirror image of the one on Canadian Railway Hall of Fame. The portrait was there before I re-wrote the article. I did a search on it and sound it facing both directions in several sources, but could not find a date. I dare say it was before April 1912. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

I have moved External Links below refs, as suggested by Manual of Style/Layout. Thanks

Early years

"from 1877–1884". If using "from", should use "to" rather than dash. DONE

Career DONE

The award of the Order of the Rising Sun could do with explaining. Why did the Emperor of Japan give an award for philanthropy in Canada? It is not at all obvious. Ref 1 suggests it was for assistance to Japan's Imperial Government Railways, which makes more sense.
"On the advice of J. Pierpont Morgan". Suggest this needs slight expansion (the financier J. Pierpont Morgan?) since we have no idea who he was or why they would heed his advice without following the link.

Transcontinental Railway

"Charles Rivers Wilson had convinced the Board of Directors to pursuit the transcontinental railway". to pursue? DONE
"and the government's building of a line" reads awkwardly. Suggest "with the government building a line" or somesuch. DONE
"Secondly, Hays also lacked support". "also" is redundant with "secondly". DONE
"both the GTP and the Grand Trunk". I am not a great lover of all the abbreviations, but think "Grand Trunk" should be "Grand Trunk Railroad". If using words, use the proper title. DONE
"Is there some reason why all the abbreviations have an "R" for Railroad on the end, but GTP does not? It seems inconsistent. I note that its own article consistently uses GTPR, (except in the lead). Yes, as explained on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway article, "GTP" is the reporting mark for that RR. I do not know why that article is inconsistent in its use.
"Melville, Saskatchewan, which was named for him". Should this be "after him"? "for him" suggests someone else named it. DONE
"the sky-rocketing cost of property". Sky-rocketing sounds like a newspaper rather than an encyclopaedia. Suggest "rapidly rising" or somesuch. DONE

Death

"they had not endorsed the scheme that led to the company's collapse." Needs clarifying. Was the scheme the whole thing, or a specific part of it? Wording suggests the latter. I did my best to explain this better. Now much clearer.
"in which his body was transported back to Montreal in". Final "in" is redundant. DONE
"Hays, Alberta is named for him". Same issue as Melville, above. DONE

Source note DONE

"lifeboat No. 7" and "lifeboat #3". Use same format for both.
"who were unclaimed immediately following the after the disaster" needs fixing.

Lead

"Hays left GTR for a short time served as the President of the Southern Pacific Railway Company". Suggest "for a short time to serve" or "and for a short time served". He left it for a short time to (in order to) serve... It means what it says. Not sure what to do here The problem was the use of "served". I have changed it to "to serve" as in your explanation, and as used in the Transcontinental Railway section.

Use of references DONE

The facts as presented are well supported by the references. However, there are a number of occassions where the same reference is used for consecutive text, with no evidence that there is anything between them which is not supported by the reference. So, "Career" para 1 has two consecutive ref 5s, "Transcontinental railway" has consecutive ref 7s in paras 1 and 3, ref 8s in para 5 and ref 1s in para 7. They should be consolidated.
I am not sure about ref 1. It actually refers to three separate web pages, and I wonder if there should be some indication as to which page supports which facts.
The year is missing from the retrieval date on ref 1.

The formal bit[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Generally well written, but see above.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

A few issues listed above.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The review is more or less done. I'll leave it for a couple of days before putting it on hold. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review and for notifying me. I have done my best to address all the issues. Take Care, --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a couple more edits, and all issues have now been fixed. Well done on an interesting article. I am awarding it GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]