Talk:Joseph Mitchell Parsons/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Section-by-section review[edit]
I will go through every section to make specific comments on anything that needs to be changed/fixed/omitted, etc.
Lead
- Everything looks good here. Maybe a little more context on the Rainbow Warrior mention because it seems a little random. I see you have more stuff in the article later on explaining it, but its mention here seems a bit out of place.
Background
- Have a specific in-line cite for 'his father beat him'
- Done. This is a challenging situation as the reference has since disappeared behind a paywall, but I did find the link in which subscription is required. This Google news search returns a short abstract which verifies the fact. KimChee (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- If possible, a cite for the 'C average' fact
- Done. Similar situation, but here is the abstract from Google news search for that citation. KimChee (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Imprisonment in Nevada
- Good.
Death of Richard Ernst
- I don't think the mention of the stuff he bought at the store is relevant.
Trial and sentencing
- Again, good. I like how the article is focused so far.
Appeals
- It appears you have a quote from Parsons at the bottom of this section. Is this supposed to be in a quote box?
- Done. However, I noticed the editors at Natalee Holloway, an FA-class article, prefer the plainer
{{quote}}
template. As this is a stylistic call rather than about the content, I am fine either way. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done. However, I noticed the editors at Natalee Holloway, an FA-class article, prefer the plainer
Execution
- Quote should be in a quotebox
Public reaction
- Change the first sentence here to something like: "Although Parsons requested that no one protest his death, the ACLU of Utah...."
Closing thoughts
- This article is already very good, well-sourced, and is amazingly neutral in all respects. The facts are laid out nicely and in a organized manner. This is certainly a viable candidate for GA-status if the small fixes listed above are done. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time to review this. Part of the credit for helping to balance the POV of the article goes to Belovedfreak who worked with me during the peer review. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Checklist[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Very good article, well sourced and nicely researched.
- 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:
- I especially like your captions which are well-done
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Moving to promote.
- Pass or Fail: