GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ComputerJA ( talk · contribs) 03:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'll happily review this article. Just by doing a quick overview, I can tell the article is well-written, properly uses reliable sources, and conforms to the appropriate layout. There was a recent update on the trial in the news, but we can discuss how to include that later. My review will consist of 2 parts. On the first one, I will go over any grammatical/spelling mistakes. On the second part, I will go over each source individually and check that the text is supported by them. Should not take me more than a few days. Please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. Anyways, thanks for writing this and I look forward to reviewing it. Big thanks, ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎)
This is the first part of my review. The article is very well written and did not find major issues with the prose. Below are my comments. I'll be going through the sources later and making sure the text is supported by the sources. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 04:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on this review. I'll take a look at the DOB issue. I look forward to Part 2. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: I found the DOB on Find a Grave and in an apparently self-published book, so I am taking it out until I find an RS. The 1934 birth year, at least, is sourced to an article in The Monitor. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 06:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Above are my final comments. Few things needed to be addressed before we move forward with the nomination. Great job! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎)
I ran a quick plagiarism test and found no serious issues. This article has passed, congratulations! I'll do the appropriate fixes shortly. Thanks for working on this interesting article, EricEnfermero. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ComputerJA ( talk · contribs) 03:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'll happily review this article. Just by doing a quick overview, I can tell the article is well-written, properly uses reliable sources, and conforms to the appropriate layout. There was a recent update on the trial in the news, but we can discuss how to include that later. My review will consist of 2 parts. On the first one, I will go over any grammatical/spelling mistakes. On the second part, I will go over each source individually and check that the text is supported by them. Should not take me more than a few days. Please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. Anyways, thanks for writing this and I look forward to reviewing it. Big thanks, ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎)
This is the first part of my review. The article is very well written and did not find major issues with the prose. Below are my comments. I'll be going through the sources later and making sure the text is supported by the sources. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 04:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on this review. I'll take a look at the DOB issue. I look forward to Part 2. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: I found the DOB on Find a Grave and in an apparently self-published book, so I am taking it out until I find an RS. The 1934 birth year, at least, is sourced to an article in The Monitor. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 06:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Above are my final comments. Few things needed to be addressed before we move forward with the nomination. Great job! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎)
I ran a quick plagiarism test and found no serious issues. This article has passed, congratulations! I'll do the appropriate fixes shortly. Thanks for working on this interesting article, EricEnfermero. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)