Talk:William Chaney

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 04:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Talk:William Chaney
Good articleWilliam Chaney 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 13, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that American historian William Chaney would pretend to shiver and look the other way whenever he walked by a statue of General Sherman?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 13, 2026.

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:William Chaney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 04:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Was the previous review abandoned, or something? In any case, I'm looking forward to this one and hope we can get it done before June so we don't reach that one-year mark! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Usernameunique: I just noticed you haven't been active on Wiki since February 22nd. Are you still around and available to respond to comments? Let me know - I'm happy to put the nomination on hold for a little while if you are unavailable at the moment. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking on this review, Ganesha811, and sorry for the delay in responding. I've just been busy with work, but should be able to respond in full—although if you wouldn't mind bearing with me a little on timing, that would also be much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Of course, no problem. I'll finish up the review and ping you when I'm done. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Usernameunique: pinging as promised - only a few issues of detail to sort out and then we're there. I also wanted to mention that this is just a great article in general - a clear portrait of an interesting man. It's nice to see an article on an academic written with such a clear, lively voice. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Usernameunique - do you have any availability soon to respond to the remaining comments below? Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay, Ganesha811, and thanks for your patience. I can respond this week if that works. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sure, that will work. I appreciate you letting me know. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Just a heads up that I know this is still on my plate and I should be back to this in the next 24 hours. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the changes. Any further thoughts on the list of lectures? I still would prefer it was removed, but I know you put a lot of work in there and would like to hear your case again for how a list of his lectures adds value for the reader - what are they expected to get from the information? Ganesha811 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and removed the list for now, since the nominator appears to be less active on Wikipedia and hasn't edited in a week. If it is later restored, I wouldn't mind, but given no response, have gone with my preference for now. With that, this article passes GA! Congrats to Usernameunique and anyone else who may have worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (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.
  • The prose is very good - in my usual way, I'm going to go through and edit any nitpicks I have directly. If there are any changes you'd like to discuss, just let me know.
    • Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • I'm not sure the list of lectures is needed - more below in Focus.
    • Issue addressed. Pass.
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, no issues.
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 - as a non-medical article, citations are sufficiently reliable.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass, no issues.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Earwig has a pretty high score for one source (42%), and there is some very similar phrasing. But I think the similarities are sufficiently short and with enough differences and changes made to pass. Some of the high score is contributed by many long proper names of organizations. Spot check on other sources found no concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Not able to find anything else notable on Chaney.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • What is the purpose of the list of lectures? What does it add to the article? Chaney was a prominent academic - it would be more notable if he *didn't* occasionally give lectures. I think the few that are truly significant (the 1966 one, for example) can be incorporated into the prose and the rest of the list can be removed. It's just unnecessary detail. I appreciate the effort it must have taken to track them down, but I don't think they should be kept.
  • That's the approach I've taken with all other articles on academics (e.g., Robert Kaske and Herbert Maryon)—discuss talks/lectures in the text, not in a standalone section. Those academics, however, are known mostly for their publications, which do take standalone sections. Chaney, however, if known partly for his published output, seems to have been known expressly as a lecturer, so much so that Lawrence established a lectureship in his honor. News articles also refer to his popularity as a speaker. Given that this is what he was known for, it seems appropriate to list them in full. They also have the benefit of shedding more light on his interests. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm, I'm not convinced. The sources talking about his popularity as a lecturer can be incorporated into the text - indeed, several already are. I don't see how a list of his lectures adds value for the reader - what are they expected to get from the information? I'd prefer it if it was removed. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • A few other details that I think can be done without: the detail about Jesse Holcomb and the subsequent anecdote about Chaney shivering, the sentence about his brother being in Harvard Medical School, the subsequent detail about his and his mother's travels, & the sentence about participation in "musical events in the area." These are basically trivial or unencyclopedic. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Significantly trimmed down the part about his family—I left in his grandmother's comment on the president since it's somewhat funny and ends the paragraph with some punch, but can remove if you think it's too much. His brother's time at Harvard Medical School, like the musical events, is now relegated to a footnote; keep in mind, however, that combined with his mother coming out to live in Cambridge, that point establishes that the entire family had essentially moved cities. Likewise, Chaney's mother lived with him for the rest of her life, including at Lawrence—that's relevant to Chaney's life, and her move out to Cambridge was the beginning of that. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Issues addressed. Pass.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Pass, no issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass, no issues, no edit wars.
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.
  • The infobox image is great, but it would be nice to find one or two other images that can be added. How about File:Main Hall at Lawrence University.jpg towards the end of the 'Career' section? If there are any other possible images that would be great, but I understand if there aren't.
  • Yeah, that's been on my to-do list for a while. I've added the photo you mentioned. I've also emailed the photographer of the image of Chaney that was already in the article, the Lawrence University archives (which contain a number of photos of Chaney), and a former student who served as the executor of Chaney's estate, in case they might have anything more than can be added. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, great, thank you for your efforts on this. More images can always be added later, but pass for GA standard.
7. Overall assessment.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.