Talk:Leo Frank/GA2/Aborted review

Reviewer: Meishern (talk · contribs) 13:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I will be reviewing this article for GA. I started reviewing articles 5 years ago and so far no complaints. I am fair. As I only edited the article once, I believe there is no conflict of interest, nor do I push any particular POV side - my only interest is in having a neutral article without undue weight given to any one point of view. Please feel free to get a second opinion, if you so choose once my review is done. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article in its entirety right now, and overall the body of the article is decent. Most of it is a good read, a nice balance between different positions. There are some left over sentences in the middle of one or two paragraphs that must have been left behind from previous edits, since they have nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.

The one thing that came to mind is how little of the article is dedicated to what the prosecution claimed took place and what the defence claimed took place the day of the murder. When I read 'And the Dead Shall Rise', a good portion of the book was about the murder, but it seems in this article we keep beating around the proverbial bush without ever satisfying the reader's curiosity as to what the prosecution and defense alleges took place.

One other thing I've noticed is that there are a couple of sections where the actual title of the section doesn't reflect the overwhelming majority of its content. I will list the specifics shortly. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised objections to you being the Class A reviewer in the section immediately under this review. See Talk:Leo Frank#Objections to Meishern as an impartial reviewer Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the article's editing history and this edit [1] in October 2010, you will see at one time there was considerable more info on trial testimony. The decision at that time was that the detail would overwhelm the readers. In addition, much of the relevant information was discovered after the trial and many witnesses on both sides recanted and claimed intimidation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

In light of the above concerns raised by North Shoreman, and considering the fact that there has been no full review after two weeks, nor did I receive a response on the original reviewer's talk page, I've decided to request a second opinion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request on my talkpage, I'll do a 2nd review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]