GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article
Great! I'm looking forward to working with you. Cheers. PrairieKid ( talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts / questions regarding the Benton incident material. Two revolve around current reference #27. First, while this is a problem with the source is that #25 & #27 are the same article from the same source, but two different web pages where they give two different dates. (April 20th & 21st) #27 is just the first few paragraphs from it and then links to the other page (#25). Second is that #27 is given to support the "hypocrite" statement but there is nothing about that in there. That leaves only #26, an op ed piece which actually makes the accusation to support the statement that "Some have labeled Benton a hypocrite" which is pretty weak, particularly for a BLP situation, and also a primary source for the statement in the article. (all of the references numbers are the numbers as of this writing) Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The statement "Many have come out in support of Rivers, who claims that Benton was harassing her and calling her a "weird, weird lady" prior to the altercation." looks unsourced. Particularly important as the statement is that there was much support for a strong accusation against Benton. Particularly important in a wp:blp situation. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. There was some info or more detailed info in the lead that was not in the body. I added that material to the body. North8000 ( talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! Nice article! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article
Great! I'm looking forward to working with you. Cheers. PrairieKid ( talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts / questions regarding the Benton incident material. Two revolve around current reference #27. First, while this is a problem with the source is that #25 & #27 are the same article from the same source, but two different web pages where they give two different dates. (April 20th & 21st) #27 is just the first few paragraphs from it and then links to the other page (#25). Second is that #27 is given to support the "hypocrite" statement but there is nothing about that in there. That leaves only #26, an op ed piece which actually makes the accusation to support the statement that "Some have labeled Benton a hypocrite" which is pretty weak, particularly for a BLP situation, and also a primary source for the statement in the article. (all of the references numbers are the numbers as of this writing) Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The statement "Many have come out in support of Rivers, who claims that Benton was harassing her and calling her a "weird, weird lady" prior to the altercation." looks unsourced. Particularly important as the statement is that there was much support for a strong accusation against Benton. Particularly important in a wp:blp situation. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. There was some info or more detailed info in the lead that was not in the body. I added that material to the body. North8000 ( talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! Nice article! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer