Talk:John Schrank/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 20:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The review

I will take on this review

The lead

1. The lead does a good job of summarizing the article. and the infobox is filled out.

   Thank you for the review. I had fun researching this subject. I will make the edits Bruxton (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

First look

1. "President William McKinley told him that Roosevelt was his murderer; and the ghost asked Schrank to avenge his death." the semicolon is out of place here and it should likely be removed and changed to (his murderer, and the ghost

   Y

2. "In court Schrank stated" suggest a comma after court.

   Y

3. "sanity commission" seems like it should be capitalized

   Y

4. "without shoes and he weighed" suggest the word (and) before without shoes.

   Y I rewrote the sentence - it actually needed a different fix

Citations check

1. Earwig result is 20% and it appears to be because of quotes.
2. Sources are high quality but I will go through each below to make sure citations line up and support text.
3. The Early life section is informative, and the citations check out. I like that citations use the specific page number
4.  Done Citations 6 and 9 could be improved with specific page numbers in the citation rather than a range. I do not think it is a must, but I would appreciate it

   Y Thanks I corrected this by adding specific page numbers

5. citations 3 and 11 check out
6. citations 2, 12 and 13 check out
7. citations 14 and 16 check out
8. citation 10 checks out
9. citations 7 and 17 check out
10. citation 5 checks out
11. The block-quotes are correctly cited per WP:BQ
12. citation 21 checks out

Images

1. Images all appear to be PD and LOC with the proper licensing

Table

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article was a pleasure to review. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. I am happy to give this a pass.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.