Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ronald M. George/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This 2011 GA has some unsourced statements and prose issues (MOS:EDITORIAL, etc.) Additionally, this article may not be up to date (the latest information in the article was in 2013) and may also fail the broadness criteria (the article is quite sparse despite his roles). Spinixster (chat!) 11:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why I was pinged on this, as I have not edited this article, except that I am part of a related WikiProject. That said, the most recent edits appear to be from last year, and it makes sense that the most recent information is from 2013, as that is when the subject's public life basically ended. As for matters of copy editing and unverified content, this sounds like stuff that can be easily fixed. I hope I am not the only WikiProject member who was notified, so that way these issues can be resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 15:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- You were pinged because you were the GA reviewer in 2011, RightCowLeftCoast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. That was so long ago. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 14:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Doing a word search for MOS:EDITORIAL, my word search didn't find any of those. The closest is notable cases sub-section header. I think it's fine to mention the cases as part of the subject's judicial history. Why those, I don't know why the article creator chose those specifically, but the content is verified to reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- What specific "MOS:EDITORIAL, etc." issues did you have in mind Spinixster? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Words like "extremely unusual decision", "Oddly," "their evidence against Buono was so weak that it did not justify even an attempt to win at trial", etc. I am not too well-versed on these kinds of MOS policies, but those words do not sound encyclopedic. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- All seem to be supported by the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Words like "extremely unusual decision", "Oddly," "their evidence against Buono was so weak that it did not justify even an attempt to win at trial", etc. I am not too well-versed on these kinds of MOS policies, but those words do not sound encyclopedic. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- What specific "MOS:EDITORIAL, etc." issues did you have in mind Spinixster? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- You were pinged because you were the GA reviewer in 2011, RightCowLeftCoast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.