Talk:Ken Bone (personality)

This article was nominated for deletion on October 11, 2016. The result of the discussion was merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis).

Ken Bone (personality) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 7, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ken Bone (activist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Of the universe (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article. Of the universe (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is well written. It's short and sweet--- an appropriate length for the subject.

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:
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):
Looks great! It will pass pending one change: The only problem is in the lead, the article refers to Bone as an activist. There is no citation in the body of the article to support the characterization of him as an activist. The text needs a citation for "activist," or else the lead and short description need a small change to remove the word "activist."

Changes made!

C. It contains no original research:
Passed spot check!

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Passed spot check!
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):
Short and sweet! It is the appropriate length for the subject.
Is it neutral?
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:
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:
Looks good

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
pass!

Of the universe Thank you so much for the review, and for your patience. I have made the requested changes in the article - please let me know if there's anything else I should do. Best, ~Liance^talk 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Of the universe, are you prepared to pass this article? -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you for pinging me. —Of the universe (say hello) 01:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]