Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
-- I look forward to reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- First, fix the disambugation link (Kalashnikov is the disamb.) - then I will go section by section reviewing the article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Section-by-section review[edit]
Going through the article to make suggestions for changes.
Images
- Everything is fine. :-)
Lead
- I think the two paragraphs should be merged because the first one doesn't even get to the point of the article.
Background
- This section seems important to state but isn't really 'background' more like 'context'. Maybe mention it in later sections but it is certainly incomplete enough to stand on its own.
Linda Norgrove
- Good! No issues here.
Kidnapping
- First sentence is a run on. Maybe omit "Dewagal valley" to make it more succinct.
- You mention 'security forces'. Which one?
Negotiations
- Seems to omit the a) effect of... b) the end result of... the negotiations
Rescue attempt and killing
- Change 'shot dead' to 'killed'.
- Norgrove's actual death is only briefly mentioned. Maybe describe what condition she was in on the helicopter, if sourced?
Subsequent events
- Everything good here.
Reactions
- Good
Concluding thoughts
- There must be something added to the article to the effect of either 'Implications' or importance. The reader is left questioning why the incident matters and what effect it had on anything. The article is clearly notable, but I feel it must be explained in the article somewhere. Maybe in the 'Reactions section'?
- Beyond that, the article is well-written and is a viable candidate for GA-promotion.
Cheers, -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I didn't nom this article for GA status but I did work on it quite a bit. I've addressed some of the simpler points and hopefully the other article editors will be able to look into the others too :) --Errant (chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help Errant. Seems you have so far made the needed edits. And thanks to Lord Roem for a good GA review so far.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Checklist[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Great article and interesting subject-matter.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Moving to promote
- Pass or Fail: