Talk:George N. Parks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Earwig's tool brought up a violation of this website, where a whole paragraph is identical. However, I'm having trouble distinguishing which was first, the Wikipedia statement, or the website. The Wikipedia edit adding the information was done on November 1, 2010, while the blog post is dated December 12, 2010. However, the blog post seems to be a re-posting of an older news item, which is dated to October 16, 2010. So a violation appears highly probable here.

There was a second violation as well, this one for certain. There is a paragraph in "Death and legacy" that is lifted verbatim from a Falls News Press article. The quote part is fine, but the wording surrounding the quote is identical on both Wikipedia and the original source. In this case, the violation is clear, since the news article predates the Wikipedia content by months if not years (I didn't look for exactly when the content was added to Wikipedia).

These violations must be fixed immediately, or else I will have to quickfail this review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I cannot see the first issue, I am going to take your word for it and wait until the bot works again so that I don't have to purge the entire text. The second issue was probably added in around that time by someone else, as I have not really added much prose to the article. Regardless, I have gone ahead and reworded it, so I hope that helps! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. The majority of the paragraph is a quote, so that is acceptable. I'll get on the rest of this article after dinner.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" The annual alumni band made up of previous band members who have since graduated from UMass, returned to participate in the event, which was the largest the university had ever seen, with approximately 1,300 participants.[17][18]" - needs a comma after "alumni band."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Follows MOS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference section provided, and citations follow a consistent format.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
http://umassalumni.com/awards/profiles/past.html and http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/111065.php, http://www.umass.edu/umhome/parks/, http://sbomagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=B7E3DC58EE1A460F819A3C9962CB9FF7, http://www.ohio.com/news/103183359.html, and http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X&date=2010-9-17 are dead links.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All is referenced, and adequate citations are provided.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
All content is verfiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
All major aspects of Parks' life are addressed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Stay focused on Parks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral in tone and representation of the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit warring or other disruptions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both images are released under Creative Commons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are useful, with suitable captions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Some dead links, and the one possible copyvio is still outstanding.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ktr101, how are things going on this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, as I have been busy the past couple of days. I will try to get it all done by the weekend, as I have some free time by then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: I have gone ahead and fixed the link issue, although I have no way to verify the first issue and correct it, due to the tool being down. If it is still working for you, let me know, as I would be happy to work off a screenshot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktr101: My bad - the link I gave was bad. I corrected the link, it should work now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: I have gone ahead and cleaned it up as much as possible, so let me know if you need anything else. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass or Fail:
All issues resolved. Passed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]