 | Isaac Franklin has been listed as one of the History 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: June 21, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Isaac Franklin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
The result was: promotedbyPrimalMustelid talk 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
)
5x expanded by Generalissima (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 38 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC).Reply
Article is newly 5x expanded and certainly long enough. The majority of sources used are either peer-reviewed academic journal articles or books from respected academic publishers, so I have no issues with accepting offline sources in good faith. The dated sources (1931/1943) are used sparingly and in appropriate context. Earwig returns no likelihood of copyright violation, although as noted a number of sources are offline. The article is well written and I see no neutrality issues - assessments of his actions are appropriately attributed to sources and contextualised. Possibly some additional commentary from modern writers could be included in the #Legacy section at some point, but this is not critical for the DYK nom. The hook is interesting – you had plenty to choose from – and reliably sourced as per the quote. The images used are correctly licensed, and QPQ is done. Thanks User:Generalissima for bringing this article on a significant historical figure up to scratch - I would see this as needing very little work to get it to GA/FA status if you would like to pursue a nomination. ITBF (talk) 10:59, 15 April 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
|
| Reviewing |
|
|
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 06:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello! I will be reviewing this article as part of Good review circle 3. I'll be using the table below. Comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
| 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. |
Lead
Early life and family
Early career
Franklin & Armfield
Planting
Personal life and death
Legacy
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Lead sections
Layout
Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
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). |
Source review
Spot check
Rothman 2022
Stephenson 1938
Tadman 2007
Christian 1976
Bancroft 1931
Gudmestad 2003
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. |
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
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.
