# Talk:John A. Tibbits

This review is transcluded from Talk:John A. Tibbits/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I would be happy to tackle this review. Anonymous 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I see this is your first GAN, but hopefully there will many more. The content is good; most of my critiques stem from formatting. I've placed it on hold, for the time being:

The use of subheadings is perhaps superfluous. The amount of prose is not huge; I personally don't think it actually needs anything beyond level two. Furthermore, see MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL (events in a biography should be presented chronologically unless there's a good reason to do otherwise).
Similarly, the number of paragraphs could be condensed. Both of these changes would significantly cut down on the amount of whitespace that currently exists when viewing this article on desktop.
See WP:CITEDENSE. There's no need to use the same reference twice in a row, which occurs in a couple places.
...leaving the College to study law in New London. College doesn't need to be capitalized.
I'm skeptical that Collector of the Port of New London is a notable enough office to be redlinked
Spot check of ref 4a shows that his mother's name is given as Fanny [Chappell] Tibbits. You recorded this as a middle name, but I believe it's meant to represent her maiden name. Therefore, it should be reworded to "Fanny (née Chappell) Tibbits" (with link). Otherwise, the ref passes spot check.
Both refs in note c pass spot checks.
Ref 10 passes spot check.
Ref 5g appears to pass spot checking for the identity of John C. Turner, but the way it's placed right now makes it look like it's being used to support the claim that Turner was involved in The Day's publication, which it doesn't. I'm assuming that's what the following reference, ref 11, is for, although I cannot personally access it. To eliminate confusion, perhaps move ref 5g within the parentheses.
Ref 7c passes spot check.
This got perhaps the lowest copyvio score I've ever seen on Earwig (usually, it's a false positive from content being copied to mirror sites, but I suppose this article is still too young for that).
The images used are all well-within public domain.
I doubt the coverage could be expanded at all (frankly, I'm impressed you were able to find this many sources).
Stable.
All in all, it looks good. There's just a few details that could be corrected or clarified. Anonymous 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for the review and for the suggestions!
I've removed the subheadings throughout the article, and condensed a couple of paragraphs. Hopefully this reduces the whitespace issue. Most of the "Career" section is in chronological order by the first event in the paragraphs, but I thought it would have been a bit silly to split up these paragraphs of related information (e.g. Tibbits' career in the CT General Assembly).
I believe I've fixed the WP:CITEDENSE issues; let me know if there's more work to be done here!
Thank you for the College, Collector of the Port of New London, and Fanny [Chappell] Tibbits suggestions; I've fixed all of those issues.
Ref 10 (previously ref 11) does indeed state The Day began July 2, 1881 when John A. Tibbets [sic], John C. Turner and John McGinley established it. I've moved 5 within the parentheses.
Thank you again @An anonymous username, not my real name, and let me know what else should be done! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It looks perfect now. I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and merged the first sentence (which had been its own paragraph) with the rest of the lead. I will pass the article now. — Anonymous 16:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)