Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesse Jackson, Jr./archive1

Jesse Jackson, Jr.[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed WP:GA, but it is not ready for WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

What makes http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm a reliable source?
- Do you have a ref number?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 58 has a formatting glitch in it.
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You use "Jackson-White" as short form for something, do you mean the Jackson & Watson book in the References? If so, that's an autobiography, you should probably be careful with how much you rely on it (I don't have a good grasp of that, as I didn't read the article all the way through.) This is more a heads up, than anything else.
- I fixed with Jackson and White. I have a request in at WP:NORN regarding use of his book.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At WP:NORN I was told that if no other source is available, I could use biographical information contained in A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights as a source of last resort for early biographical detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 90 needs to be formatted to match the rest of the newspaper refs (lacking a publisher right now)
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 142 is lacking a publisher
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 150 is lacking a publisher
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 157 through 162 are lacking last access dates.
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't promise I caught every minor glitch with the format of the refs, but I think I got most of them.

Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]