Talk:Hammer Historical Collection of Incandescent Electric Lamps

Ambiguity in dates

The third paragraph of the "Description" section is ambiguous because of a combination of using "then" to describe actions and other information not being in chronological order. Currently the paragraph reads as:

The General Electric Company bought the collection from Hammer in 1912 for $10,000. In 1931 the light bulb collection had an estimated value of over a million dollars. They then (in 1931 or in 1912?) donated it to the Edison Association of Illuminating Companies. The collection was then put into a formal display room in 1913 at the Headquarters of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City. The display information for each Case is how it existed in 1913 after Hammer had collected these light bulbs for 34 years.

I suspect that if the second sentence (about the 1931 value) is moved to the end of the paragraph everything will be in order. That is assuming GE donated it soon after purchasing it in 1912. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hammer Historical Collection of Incandescent Electric Lamps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 07:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The references are incorrectly formatted. Please unify the "references" and "sources" sections into the "references" section by moving citations inline and using the {{cite}} templates, and then remove the "sources" section. Consider adding access dates or source dates to references where possible.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   The statement "The collection of lamp bulbs is the most comprehensive known in the world." in the lead paragraph should be cited.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Much of the page text is very similar in layout to one of the referenced pages. It isn't copied verbatim and has certainly been paraphrased beyond changing a word here and there, but it could probably benefit from more paraphrase and more combination of material from different sources.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Try to relate the second paragraph of "American Institute of Electrical Engineers" to the exhibit itself; currently, it makes statements of fact about the development of lightbulbs in general terms. This is not a blocking issue; it's reasonably intuitive (I think?) how the material relates to the topic.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I noticed that most images were tagged PD-US even though they stated publication before 1923, so I updated most of them to use PD-1923 instead. However, a handful are mysteriously licensed under CC ShareAlike with caveats - are we able to determine if there was some creative effort that gave rise to the claim of copyright for specifically those images? They seem to have identical provenance... I don't think mere digitization confers copyright, but I'm no expert. It would also be good for someone to eventually clear any possible claim of copyright from the PD-1923 images over at commons. However, as it stands, there are no copyright issues apparent with the images in use on the page.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   This is an extraordinarily well-illustrated article! Well done!

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Once the outstanding issues above with citations are resolved, I think we can promote this to GA.

@Falcon Kirtaran: I believe I corrected those items of issue. If I missed something, let me know and I will gladly fix.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good! The references technically meet the MoS guidelines but could probably be moved to citations; the rest of the advice here is completely optional for a GA. Congratulations on the good article! As an aside, if you're ever in Seattle, I think you might enjoy the Museum of Communications. FalconK (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Falcon Kirtaran: Thanks for GA status. Thanks for advice - I think I have now formatted the Reference section the way you suggested. Yes, the Museum of Communications would be right up my ally - especially since my background was as an electronic's technician repairing computers.-- Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2016‎ (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)