Talk:Brereton C. Jones/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead tells us twice (once at the beginning and again at the end) that Jones is chair of the Kentucky Equine Education Project.

Removed the redundancy.

"Although Jones maintained a tenuous relationship with the Kentucky General Assembly following comments he made in the wake of the federal Operation Boptrot investigation ...". Not sure what "tenuous" is supposed to mean here. I'm guessing from the context that the relationship between Jones and the Assembly was strained rather than tenuous.

Yep. Wrong word choice on my part.

Early life

"Jones was a standout football player ...". I've got no idea what "standout" means. Outstanding?

It does indeed mean "outstanding", and I hear this word pretty often in that context. Still, I've changed it to "star" to avoid any confusion.

In the third paragraph there are three consecutive sentences each cited to the same source, which is both unnecessary and distracting. If a sequence is cited then the citation should only appear once, at the end of whateve material it is supporting. This same issue crops up throughout the article, such as in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the Lieutenant governor section.

Typically, I only combine references if they can be combined for the entire paragraph. This ensures that, if material gets moved around, the citation goes with it, and it also staves off the inevitable challenges that seem to come as soon as I try to reduce the number of footnotes. I'd really prefer to keep this if possible. I've had many other GAs and even FAs pass this way, and the citation guidelines don't seem to me to specifically forbid it.

While I'm not fond of your system, there is indeed nothing that forbids it, and it's certainly not part of the GA criteria, so if you want to stick with it then that's fine as fas as this review goes. I'd point out though that you're not being entirely consistent in its application; see the first paragraph of the Governor section, for instance. We need to bear in mind as well that what we do is for the convenience of readers, not for us as editors. Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Airdrie contains the original site of Winburn Farm, a top thoroughbred farm in the 1800s that had remained dormant for more than 70 years until Jones' creation of Airdrie Stud." I'm not sure that a thoroughbred farm can remain "dormant", but as Jones didn't restart the business isn't it still dormant?

Yeah, this might not have been the best wording. See what you think now.

Governor

"... Jones drew criticism from ethics watchdogs because no law required him to disclose his business partners and associates with Airdrie Stud ...". This is slightly muddled. Does it mean "business partners and association with Aidrie Stud"? If not, then what does "disclose his ... associates with Aidrie Stud" mean?

I've added "identities of" for clarification. See how it reads now.

"Both chambers worked to reconcile differences in the bill ...". The differences weren't in the bill.

Correct. I've made this more apparent now.

This review is now on hold for up to seven days, to allow time for these issues to be addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hopefully, I have resolved all the issues and can get this passed to GA today. I'll probably be off-wiki all or nearly all weekend. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that this article now meets the GA criteria. Thanks for responding so quickly to the issues I raised Acdixon. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{discussion bottom]]