Talk:Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Background section, "Robert Kennedy" is mentioned, but reading further, in the Assassination section, "Robert F. Kennedy" is written and it would be best that "Robert F. Kennedy" be mentioned first and then you can add "Robert Kennedy". I'm not an expert with "law terms", but shouldn't this sentence, in the Perpetrator section, ---> "The judge did not accept this confession and it was later withdrawn", be re-written a little better. In the Conspiracy theories, this sentence ---> "Some persons involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious problems with the official case", it would be best to replace "persons" with "individuals".

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
It wouldn't hurt to link "New York" in the lead. In the Media coverage section, it wouldn't hurt to link ABC, CBS, and NBC. The dates need to be linked per here.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
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):
Does Reference 27 cover ---> "One doctor slapped his face, calling, "Bob, Bob," while another began massaging Kennedy's heart"? In the CIA section, does Reference 48 cover all the third paragraph info?

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
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:
~~Image:Robertkennedy.jpg appears to have be missing source information and that needs to be fixed.~~ Changed to a free public domain image from the commons. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments - give us 24-48 hours (editors in multiple timezones) to get this sorted I'll let you know when we're there Fritzpoll (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, think we're finished. I added a new citation to complement 27 which has the same information that you were concerned was unreferenced. Source 48 doesn't cover all the third paragraph info, just the last line. The first part of the paragraph is covered within the film that it refers to. Do you want the film to be cited inline, even though it is explicitly attributed in the text? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be best to add the film citation. Overall, the article looks well, just adding the film source makes the article be steps from it from becoming GA. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after re-reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]