Talk:Clarence Lightner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Thanks for your patience; I've finished, just a couple more for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
All issues addressed.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
One concern with dead source addressed

C. It contains no original research:
Spotchecks clear

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Spotchecks clear, Earwig's tool clear, though it flags titles he held
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All feedback taken care of, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can you find links for "black" and "white" at first use in the body that would be appropriate for the US context?
- I've simply inked to black people and white people if that suffices.
  - That's fine; African Americans and White Americans would be another option.
Link "football" and "quarterback"
- Done.
Do we know where he served in WWII?
- Sources do not specify.
"He later served as president" "He" is ambiguous
- Changed to Lightner.
Find a link for "desegregate"
- Linked to School integration in the United States.
"During his tenure" tenure on what?
- Err to which instance are you referring? I have now clarified all anyhow.
"Mayor pro tempore" shouldn't "pro tempore" be italicized?
- It is a Latin phrase, but its also an official title, like President pro tempore of the United States Senate, so italicization seems unnecessary.
Link "South" (in the American context)
- "Southern" is already linked to Southern United States.
  - Missed that.
Link "mass transit system"
- Done.
The first paragraph of "later activities" is verging on proseline. I'm not going to hold up the GA review over this, but I would suggest varying the sentence structure a little there.
- Minor revision made.
Acronyms, while useful, can be confusing, and I recommend avoiding them where possibly. NCCU and CIAA are both used just once; you could substitute the full form without any length issues.
- Done.
Can you find an archive url for the dead link?
- @Vanamonde93: No, it seems permanently lost. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Indy beetle: strange. Given that it's a quote from a living person, I'm not too happy signing off on a permanently unverifiable link. Can you look for an alternative? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Vanamonde93: I've found another source to corroborate the existence of the foundation, and have thus added that, but nothing for the quote, so I've removed it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks good, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]