# Talk:William Henry Cushing

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Henry Cushing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sodabottle (talk)
I will be reviewing this article in the next few days.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
1) which reputedly made him wealthy - why add "reputed" here?. why not just plain wealthy?
I haven't found a source that says outright that he was wealthy.  It's frustrating, because it seems obvious that he was, but you know: WP:NOR. Steve Smith (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
In that case thats okay. lets be cautious :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
2) what was now the City of Calgary - should we put "City of Calgary" in quotes or explain its incorporation in 1894 (i didnt get it first and had to check the calgary article to confirm what happened between 1893 and 1895)
3) he came west as a young adult - can this be clarified a bit like "migrated west" or something to that effect?. Going west is, i suspect a common north american phrase, but for a non-north american english reader like me it needs clarifying a bit. (not that important, i got where he went after a moment's puzzlement).
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
1)May be names of family (parents, spouses and children) could be added
I'm looking through my sources, and I can't find any of these.  Have you seen them somewhere? Steve Smith (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
They're listed here, but that appears self-published. Steve Smith (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have sourced the first two marriages with a Canadian who's who published in 1912. (snippet view in Gbooks). But can't find a published book for referencing the third marriage--Sodabottle (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
2)His term as a trustee for Calgary Board of Education should be added.
Added. Steve Smith (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Standard NPOV language. no complaints.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
Steve Smith is the only recent significant contributor. So no scope for edit wars.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
1) both the images used - portrait and signature - are in PD.
2) The portrait in infobox does not have a caption. Adding the year of the photo would be good
3) Adding this image will look good
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Except a few very minor issues, this article meets all the good article criteria. I am putting this on hold till 11 April 2010, so that those minor issues can be addressed.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)GAR Passed--Sodabottle (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review; I've responded to a couple of points above, and will act on your other points.  I'm a little curious about the  after "no original research", but I assume that you'll get to that. Steve Smith (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops. my bad. i have corrected that now. I am going through the text once more for the prose. will finish the review in another half a day--Sodabottle (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Smith @Sodabottle neither of you are reslly active anymore, but I don't think the 15-year-old GA review was closed properly. The article still says "currently a good article nominee" despite passing years ago; its not undergoing any reassessment either. Roast (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)