Jump to content

Talk:Bobby Bostic/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the last few hours reading both the article and pretty much every source used, and couldn't find anything particularly noteworthy to complain about. The only two points I could conceivably raise are in the Crime & Sentencing section:

  • and the belief the sentence could not get any worse. → and the belief the eventual sentence could not be worse than the terms of the plea deal.
  • Hutson accepted a 30-year plea deal and was sentenced as such by judge Baker. → and was sentenced to such by judge Baker.

But these aren't enough to withhold promotion, so I've changed them myself, but feel free to rephrase if you want to.

I searched for academic works relating to both the person and the case, but couldn't find anything usable (although found lots about an unrelated Bobby Bostic... some union/labor relations lawsuits from the 50s to the 70s or some such). I'm satisfied all available/relevant information is appropriately contained within the article. Copyvio tool doesn't flag any concerns, and the only image used in the article is of a fair-use image (with an appropriately filled-out rationale) of the subject's likeness, which I think is contextually significant. Happy to promote this article to GA. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]