Talk:Assassination of William McKinley/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this article - looking engrossing. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Review
A wonderful article with just a few comments by me:
- lots of blue links in first couple of sentences. - United States President William McKinley - e.g. could it be President of the United States, William McKinley?
- also, isn't it frowned on to link in the bolding?
- Why was the secretary leery of the Temple of Music?
- "was executed by electric chair" - was electricuted? by electricution? in the electric chair?
- Bacground
- "McKinley's tenure had seen" - (personal preference) - how does a tenure see?
- "Leon's father, sought work throughout the Midwest; Leon was considered a bright boy." - what connects these two parts of the sentence?
- Is so much detail about Roosevelt's selection as vice president necessary? - it doesn't seem to play a role subsequently in the article.
- Czolgosz stalks the President
- "He was heavily guarded by soldiers and police; but still tried to interact with the public" - why semicolon? or should there be a verb?
- "Despite a Cortelyou warning to the organizers that she might not" - does this mean he warned her not to?
- "he stated gently of Czolgosz" - gently - seems rather novelistic?
- "With the greatest complaint of the President being loneliness (he was permitted few visitors), by September 9, dignitaries started to leave, confident of the President's recovery." - what's the connection - they left because he complained of loneliness?
- McKinley's aftercare and death
- "aftercare" is kind of what happens when the patient has been discharged and is recovering - to me, it doesn't seem like the right word to use.
- so many mentions of Leech - using "find" I was able to see the first mention and assume he's an author, but I don't know if you can assume that way farther down in the article, the reader will remember.
- re linking - seems overdone - like why Detroit, Michigan when it could be Detroit, Michigan. Also, so inconsistency - e.g. check that all states are linked (or not linked) - whatever.
That's all for now. Pretty minor complaints! Great article.
MathewTownsend (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
p.s. dead external link - MathewTownsend (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've been told it's better to separately link the city and state when it is the first use for both, to allow for the two links. I caught I hadn't linked New Jersey. I tend to link a state once, and only once, because I agree, it really isn't that necessary. But if I don't do it, sometimes it gets done, and done badly. Thanks for the praise. I'm always anxious for feedback like you have in the review, because I'm not the best judge of my own writing and I miss stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's not a do or die issues, but I thought the rule was to only link places (like states) if they actually have relevance to the article - more than just a mention. But ... who knows? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think its an area where editors do disagree, but I think any reasonable approach is acceptable so long as you are consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's not a do or die issues, but I thought the rule was to only link places (like states) if they actually have relevance to the article - more than just a mention. But ... who knows? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've been told it's better to separately link the city and state when it is the first use for both, to allow for the two links. I caught I hadn't linked New Jersey. I tend to link a state once, and only once, because I agree, it really isn't that necessary. But if I don't do it, sometimes it gets done, and done badly. Thanks for the praise. I'm always anxious for feedback like you have in the review, because I'm not the best judge of my own writing and I miss stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- B. Remains focused:
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- 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:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass. A surprisingly gripping article! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. It is on the fast track to FAC. I am glad you like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)