Talk:John W. Winters/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: I'm done here; not going to bother putting this on hold since you're usually fairly quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]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 my concerns addressed
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- All concerns addressed
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- No issues
- 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:
- References look solid
- C. It contains no original research:
- Spotchecks are clear
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool flagged one sentence that was too close to the source; I've fixed it.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- No extraneous information
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Comments addressed
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All issues addressed, passing shortly.
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- The article glosses over the move from NYC back to Raleigh; is any information available?
- The source did not provide any details.
"was disqualified from service due to scars left by a childhood illness"
This is very strange; certainly the first time I've heard of someone being disqualified for evidence of injury. Does the source have any details?- Unfortunately not.
"on the account of his black race"
A bit awkward: I would suggest "because he was black", or even "due to racial discrimination"- Changed to "because he was black".
"Raleigh's black leaders"
"leaders" is a bit peacockish. I'd suggest "wealthy or influential black men" or some such.- Changed to "black affluent men".
"excluded from white groups"
"groups" is weird. "Clubs"?- Changed to clubs.
"he helped devise a strategy"
Do we know what this was? If not, I'd suggest simplifying to "participated in efforts to increase..."- Source was not specific, changed to "participated in efforts to increase".
"ran as a Democrat for a Senate seat of the 14th district, representing portions of Wake, Lee and Harnett counties"
It's odd to place these details after the sentence about his first run; do we know if that was for the same seat, and with the same affiliation? If so, I'd suggest reordering.- @Vanamonde93: This is probably the case, but the source did not specify. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)