Talk:Thomas Edison/GA3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
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.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: PeriodicEditor (talk · contribs) 06:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello PeriodicEditor, thanks for taking up this review. Unfortunately I will be inactive for the next several weeks due to a personal matter. I should be able to response to all feedback before Christmas though I recognize this may impact the review. Czarking0 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Czarking0, that's ok, thanks for letting me know. It shouldn't have too much impact though. I won't finish review until after you feedback so you have a chance to comment and address any issues. PeriodicEditor (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
| Criteria | Sub criteria | Result | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Well written | a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct |  |
Prose is understandable and spelling and grammar have been fixed |
| b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation | |
Follows WP:MOS. Does not contain any problematic words to watch. List incorporation is not an issue for this article. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research | a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline | |
All references are well formatted. |
| b. 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) | |
Well sourced, nothing that could be reasonably challenged is without a source. | |
| c. it contains no original research | |
No obvious original research, all statements seem to be backed up by references. | |
| d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism | |
Very similar to this but based on the version of the article at the time of that articles creation, I believe it is an instance of WP:MIRROR. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage | a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic | |
Covers all major aspects of his life, inventions and work |
| b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) | |
Gives a good amount of detail about his work | |
| 4. Neutral | |
Gives non-biased and factual information about him. | |
| 5. Stable | |
No edit warring, only one case of recent vandalism, which was quickly fixed. | |
| 6. Illustrated where appropriate | a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content | |
All images are public domain or self taken images |
| b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions | |
Has informative diagrams that are all relevant | |
Source Check
I have checked all of the sources I could and all were good, however, I cannot check the book sources.
For the book sources, several of them are available or at least searchable via internet archive. I borrowed the Morris book from the library to write this page and had to return it. I can check it out again and provide quotes if you feel that additional spotchecking is in order.Czarking0 (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think additional checking is necessary, all sources supported by the books are non-contreversial and are mostly backed up by other sources. PeriodicEditor (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Other Issues
Might potentially come under WP:TOO BIG, however not enough to warrant failing.
- The talk page had some discussion about this. I personally think it is ok for GA. If further cutting is done I recommend targeting some of the sentences focused on people that worked for him. Czarking0 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it wasn't a major issue, it also wasn't fully over TOO BIG PeriodicEditor (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you have any objections, I'm going to pass the article for GA PeriodicEditor (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)