Jump to content

Talk:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/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: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give this a go. I've just read the whole article top to bottom and it's a great piece of writing that puts a whole slant on Hendrix's life that I never really appreciated before. One quick thing I want to comment on is I think the image captions need adjusting to put some more context into the bust and its trial. How is a 1973 picture of Toronto airport specifically relevant to the article? A few terms could use more explanation; we know who Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell are, but not everyone will, for example.

I'll go through the article in finer detail tomorrow and make specific in-depth comments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I've clarified who Redding and Mitchell are, and I've added some detail to the image captions. Hope this resolves your concern. Thanks again for taking on the GAN! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, specific comments (please note I edit-conflicted, so some of the image caption stuff might now be irrelevant)

Lead

[edit]
  • The infobox picture could do with a little more context as to how specifically it relates to the article ie: "Hendrix's booking photo at the time of his arrest in Toronto, 3 May 1969"
  • From a usability point of view, having the wikilink to Hendrix in the title instead of the first use half a sentence later means it doesn't stand out on my browser. I can't think of another article that links to a sub-term in its actual title text.
  • Might it be worth dropping in a bit about the charges and trial's notability. The mentions of a possible cover up that's detailed in the body, and its general lack of coverage compared to, say, the Stones' Redland bust in 1967, would be worth dropping into the lead.

Background

[edit]

Arrest, performance, and arraignment

[edit]

Preliminary hearing

[edit]

Second Toronto arrest

[edit]

Trial

[edit]

Initial suppression of media coverage

[edit]

Conspiracy theory

[edit]
  • The section title is POV (if you'd asked the police and authorities at the time they'd have outright denied it). How about "Reaction" or "Public response" instead?
    • I'm not sure about this one; neither "Reaction" or "Public response" is accurate to the section, IMO. I think that theory makes it clear that its not a proven fact, but I'm open to suggestions. The section is about a possible conspiracy to make rock stars look bad, so it seems appropriate to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Wayne Kramer talking specifically about Hendrix's arrest or drug busts in general?
  • "and soon afterward Eric Clapton and Stephen Stills were also" - how about "were too" instead?

Summary

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
  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:

This is a very good article and an interesting insight into a part of Hendrix's life that I was previously unaware of, and which neatly ties into the general culture and reaction to rock stars in the 1960s. All the issues here are relatively minor things, so I'm putting the review On hold pending fixes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent review, Ritchie! I think I've now addressed all of your concerns, but if I missed anything please let me know. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just the UPI abbreviation, which I've done myself, so it's a pass. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ritchie! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]