Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ethanpet113 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have begun review and will use the section numbers of the relevant criteria as shorthand for which criteria is being evaluated.
Preliminary evaluation
- Writing
- Contents:There do not appear to be any serious errors, nor would I consider the prose to be noteworthy. They are informative but terse.
- Layout and words to watch: I am concerned about the number of sections and paragraphs which contain as little as one sentence MOS:PARA in particular the section "open access", a cursory glance shows no unattributed quotes, but the circumstances of his death are clearly contentious so I will have to take some time to evaluate that the any loaded statements are well attributed. Since this is time consuming I will defer this until other easier criteria have been met or failed.
- Verifiability:Some citations such as those for "Patriot of the web", the page for Swartz memorial and blog posts may fail WP:UGC, pending results from citation bot
- Broad: Pretty focused and sufficient coverage of the person's life.
- Neutral: There are some accusations that the prosecutor in the case which led to his suicide were unduly harsh, but little coverage of any response to from either the prosecutors or the state. Or any discussion of the follow-up leading to the bills mentioned later in the article.
- Stable: This article has had some wholesale reverts about 2 to 3 times a month, not an edit war, but not what I would call stable.
- Illustrated:Yes
Current conclusions This article does not meet the criteria for good article because it does not flow having several one line paragraphs just inserted in the appropriate section, rather than consistent smooth flowing prose. It seems to be fairly verifiable but is somewhat lopsided given the extreme circumstances of the subject's death. Some citations may be inappropriate according to wikipedia's policies on user generated and self published content, although some leeway is allowed for primary sources pertaining to the main subject of the article. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Closing, no timely feedback from nominater Ethanpet113 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)