# Talk:Massie Wireless Station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Massie Wireless Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ballpointbiro (talk · contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an amateur radio enthusiast so I loved reading this article! It's really good, it just needs a few issues addressing. Things to improve are in italics. Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks! I'll leave a quick note and work on the other points over the weekend. --mikeu talk 19:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ballpointbiro: I think I've addressed the issues but please let me know if there is anything else that could use improvement. --mikeu talk 13:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
You've done a great job on the article, I'm very happy to give it good article status now! Best regards, Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


### 0 - Copyvio
Earwig reports 38.7% similarity total, the main culprit is the lead section which is copied from amp.blog.shops-net.com/36682259/1/infrastructure-completed-in-1907.html. The lead section needs rewriting to address this.
It looks like that site copied the bulk of this article to [1] without proper CC attribution. --mikeu talk 19:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
They also used the photo that I took 2 years ago and embedded it in the site using a link to wikimedia. --mikeu talk 13:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, sorry I didn't look closely enough at that site to establish that. Your lead section is spot on; provides a good summary of the article without being excessively long. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


### 1 - Writing
A - Prose, spelling, grammar
The prose flows well and is in good encyclopaedic style. I think it is rich enough in technical detail to satisfy someone casually interested in the topic without drowning them in jargon. No spelling or grammatical mistakes.
B - Lead section, layout, words to watch, fiction, lists
See Copyvio for lead section. The layout is logical and follows the MOS, and the article does not contain any words or phrases to watch. The lists in the article are relevant and neatly formatted in tables.


### 2 - Verifiability
A - References
All the references are relevant and work correctly (no broken links).
B - Citations
Inline citations are where they need to be, and page numbers are provided where neccessary.
C - Original research
There are no unsupported points or original research in the article.
D - Copyvio
See section 0


### 3 - Coverage
A - Coverage
The coverage on the topic is good. In the future it might be nice to add a short section of background describing the state of radio technology at the time. Not required for GA, but I think it would be good to give the casual reader some context.
That's a good idea. There was a fierce competition between Massie, DeForrest, and Marconi. All of them raced to bring more innovative technology to market. --mikeu talk 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a fascinating time in radio history. I just wonder about the aliens 110 lightyears away having to listen to all those spark-gap transmitters firing off! Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
B - Focus
The article doesn't wander off topic, it is clear and concise.


### 4 - Neutrality
The article does not deal with any contentious issues, and presents the facts in a balanced way.


### 5 - Stability
The article is stable and not subject to any edit wars.


### 6 - Illustration
A - Copyright
All illustrations and linked media are either in the public domain or were created by Wikipedians, no issues here.
B - Relevancy, captions
Most of the images are relevant, and the captions concise and informative. However the main text of the article is "sandwiched" between an image and the infobox (see MOS:SANDWICH). I also think that the number of images should be reduced; the gallery at the bottom, while interesting, is probably not neccessary in the article. I think the Wikimedia Commons collection linked at the bottom of the page is a more appropriate place for these images.
I trimmed it down to the more essential images of the building and equipment. I changed the placement. --mikeu talk 20:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Great. Like I said I think all of the pictures were relevant and interesting, it's always hard to choose just a couple and you've done a great job. The page looks a lot cleaner now. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)