Talk:James McCune Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article James McCune Smith has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Changes

I've made some rather major changes to this article. I've broken it into sections, did some re-wording, and removed some material that's currently unsourced per the article itself. It looks a bit bare now, but the "skeleton" is larger, so it should be a bit easier to build on.

I also removed the link to New York Historical Society because it led to the Wikipedia article, and when I went to the site itself, the PDF transcript they had didn't work. The podcast might be fun to include, though - I've seen it done.

I found some other online sources that could help. I'm aware that I did remove some facts, so I thought I should provide alternative sources for the online:

I also noticed that in the sources the jury is out on whether Dr. Smith actually did have the first black pharmacy, it's just "widely believed". If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on my talk page. NinaEliza 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

  • Lead is too short, should be two paragraphs
  • In the lead you mention that he is an African American three times in two sentences
  • Smith was born in on April 18, 1813 New York City, was born in on...?
  • Inline references are not formatted properly, check {{cite web}}
  • you need an infobox for that picture and add other information to it, birth spouse etc
  • Some sections are basically ' he did this', he did that ,he also did this
  • Years alone shouldn't be wikilinked
  • Images need to be re-sized
  • Some sections are too short

Has this article had a peer review? the link to it is red which means it doesn't exist, make sure you read how to do one. The article has potential but these issues are major and need to be addressed. Good-luck M3tal H3ad 10:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA (2nd nom) on hold

I am putting the article on a 7-day hold. If the following fixes cannot be made in 7 days, I will have to fail the article. Further information on good article criteria at WP:WIAGA.

  • Criteria 1 (quality of writing): Generally looks good, but could use some expansion (see criteria 3 below)
  • Criteria 2 (accuracy and referencing): The references look fine, but the formating is a big problem. It should be noted that this problem has not been fixed since the last review. Each reference needs full bibliographic information, including:
    • Author (if availible)
    • Title
    • Larger work (if applicable)
    • Publication information
    • Date of access (for web-based citations)
There are many templates availible to organize this information at WP:CITET. You don't need to use them specifically, but you do need to expand the refs to include all necessary information.
  • Criteria 3 (broadness): Article seems lacking here. I can't imagine that a black physician in 19th century America didn't have more racial problems. There must be some documented conflicts that he went through? His work in the Abolitionist movement is short and cursory as well. Each of these major events could take up a whole paragraph, each is given only a sentance.
  • Criteria 4 (NPOV): Looks fine here.
  • Criteria 5 (stable): No stability problems here!
  • Criteria 6 (images): Looks fine here too!

If you feel that this review was handled inappropriately, please ask for remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any further questions, or you want me to read over the article once you have made the requested fixes, drop a note at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed: Hold expired

I have failed this GA nomination because the hold has been in place for 7 days, and I see no evidence that anyone has even edited the article in that time, let alone make any attempt to address the above concerns. If the above corrections are made at any time, please feel free to renominate it at WP:GAC. If you feel that this article was failed incorrectly, please request a review at WP:GA/R. Thanks and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review Passed

I have reviewed this article, and although only small changes have been made since the previous unsuccessful review, I nevertheless find that the article presently meets the Good Article criteria. It's a relatively short and easy read, it seems sufficiently sourced, and the fact that more conflicting sources haven't been presented is something that may or may not reflect the true picture of McCune Smith, but to me it seems as if the editors have fairly presented what has been known to exist. Possibilities for improvement exist, and I can see how the article could go more in-depth in some areas. This, however, should be weighed against the risk of diminished readability. In particular some elucidation of McCune Smith's rhetorical prose and some prominent public exchanges would add some color to the article which is a little bland. Furthermore, the see also section could be very much trimmed as it duplicates much in the article. __meco 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)