Talk:Bernard Stone/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article on local politician Bernard Stone. Being in local politics myself, I hope I did not learn to many bad tricks from studying this article ;) Well, anyway, let's get to it:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The issues at hand are:

There are several dead links that you should try and sort out. They can be seen here.

Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take care of WP:REPEATLINK. There are some of those in there as well.

Done Several overlinks removed, others modified. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Education: Someone already tagged it, the section lacks sources.

Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican years: Third paragraph, you write against Democratic Illinois State Representative Carol Moseley Braun, who is black. I think against African-American Democratic Illinois State Representative Carol Moseley Braun might be more politically correct? I don't know if there is a convention on Wikipedia on this sort of word choice, but black seems weird to me.

Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Berny's Wall": It seems that this section relies only on articles from the Chicago Tribune, which makes it a little one-sided. Maybe you can find at least 1-2 sources from another local papar, like the Sun-Times? Generally, this article relies very heavily on just these two sources, but I will not hold that against you, I believe it is hard enough to find sources as it is.

Fixed two dead url refs to sources other than the Chicago Tribune in the section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added three Chicago Sun-Times references to the section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section trimmed for length. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life: The ^{[citation needed]} markup was already put there by someone else, please find a source here.

Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has the usual seven days to take care of the issues at hand. Good work so far! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Thank you for the swift changes, this is now a Good Article. Congratulations! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it: You nominated this in "World History". I feel it would be better suited in "Politics and Government". Would you mind me placing it there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Not at all. Hugh (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and your comments. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]