Talk:Roger A. Pryor/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems. ✓ Pass Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The article is reasonably well written Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):
I feel that the 'Lead could be expanded a little. Perhaps two more sentences summarizing his career. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
The article is well referenced.', I assume good faith for all print sources cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
All sources appear to be reliable
c (OR):
I find no evidence of WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
The article is reasonably broad in its scope. His wife is mentioned at the end, when did he marry? Did he have children? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (focused):
The article is correctly focusssed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
adheres to WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
no evidence of edit warring or instability. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Images are tagged and copyright status check out at present. Please note that changes in Wikipedia licensing may change the status of these pictures, see Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain/Mistagged_images#Mistagged_public-domain_images. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
A caption for the photograph in the infobox would be good, perhaps when taken, his status at that time? Likewise for the later picture (looking at Lincoln) Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A few minor points: Lead expansion, reconsider caption for photos, on hold for now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually considering reviewing this, so I'll add some comments I don't see mentioned above.

citations should all be either before or after punctuation; consistency, please
What is The South?
What is the "so-called conversion"? (If it's something he's somehow known for, why isn't it in the lead?)

(My guess is that this has to do with a change of attitude about war-related issues. You really need to write more about this. If possible, you should also characterize his legal work, especially if it deals with war-related issues.) -- Magic♪piano 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with all of those points, thanks Magic. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead still needs expansion. Some information about his wife and family is needed. The points raised by Magic have not been addressed. I am failing this for now, please bring back when these points have ben addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]