Talk:Howell E. Jackson/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 05:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Extraordinary Writ, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and present it to you in some time. I hope my feedback will be helpful and that I can learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ, I have completed the review and promoted the article. This is a very well researched and well sourced article, you have done excellent work on it. I've left a couple suggestions in the comments below but other than that I could not locate any other issues whatsoever. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I very much appreciate your comments, which I've addressed below. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ, I have completed the review and promoted the article. This is a very well researched and well sourced article, you have done excellent work on it. I've left a couple suggestions in the comments below but other than that I could not locate any other issues whatsoever. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "The elder Jackson" almost sounds like its referring to an older sibling, I would just suggest using the full name Alexander Jackson instead.
- The lead says he authored about 50 opinions, it could just state that it was 46.
- "While Jackson's opinion in Pollock kept him from total obscurity in the annals of history ..." This part in the last paragraph of the lead seems unnecessary. The second line in the lead is a more representative version of the same.
- I understand what you're saying, but I think it reads a bit more fluidly the way it is. It also emphasizes something separate that the sources find important: that Pollock rescued Jackson from "the shroud of anonymity". I hope you won't mind if I keep it as written. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]- Comprehension: The article is well written.
- Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
- Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.
- Neutrality: The article is neutral.
- Stability: The article is stable.
- Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The prose is clear, concise and understandable. | Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | The article is complaint with the manual of style. | Pass
|
Pass
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all its contents in the body. | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | Sources used are reliable. | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | No original research found. | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No plagiarism or copyright violations found. | Pass
|
Pass
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The article broadly covers all major aspects. | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | The article remains on topic without unnecessary deviations. | Pass
|
Pass
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view. | Pass
|
Pass
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| No ongoing edit warring or content disputes present. | Pass
|
Pass
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Images are tagged with their appropriate copyright statuses. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Use and captions are good. | Pass
|