Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Per WP:Lead the lead is to be a summary of all the points brought up in the article. As such I don't feel the lead in this article meets the current standards. I don't see any mention of the manhunt, mourning or trial in the lead. This should be added to help the lead meet this standard.
This section is fine, I don't see any problems.
Is there no sentencing information on Bostic? I would assume he got the same as Woods but that is a hole given the fact that the other two have sentencing information. More to come. H1nkles ( talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there ever any discussion as to why they did it? I don't recall reading that in the article. A motive is a huge missing piece here that I didn't think to bring up in the previous review. H1nkles ( talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the article is succinct and well-written. I made some fixes as I went through, minor stuff mostly. I don't feel it meets the GA Criteria right now but I'm willing to hold the article for work to be done. I know you've been waiting a while for the review and you should have some time to make corrections or discuss the review. One issue beyond what I've raised above is that of overlinking. This is more of a pet peeve of mine. Per WP:Link words in common English usage do not need to be linked. I went through and delinked some of the words but there are others like "cracker" and "tuna fish" and "jail" that I would delink. It's a judgment call. It's not a huge deal but I thought I'd bring it up.
The big deals that you should really address to bring the article to GA standing would be the reference issues, the lead, the need for a reference for the neighbor fugitive transport issue in the Manhunt section, and the map problem. I'll hold the article for a week or so and I certainly welcome discussion on the issues I've raised. I'm a fairly pragmatic reviewer and would be happy to hear any dissenting opinions. H1nkles ( talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Second Review Overall Comments So the article is coming along nicely. Unfortunately some of what I didn't catch in the first read through is coming up in the second run. I apologize for this and I know it means some more work. Not all of my suggestions in the second read through are critical for GA. I would say the comment about motive is a big glaring comprehensive hole. Were they involved in a crime, did they steal the car? What possessed them to just open fire? If there is no motive then say that and reference it. Also there is no Fair-Use rationale for using the NYPD badge at the top of the page. The FU rationale is for use on the NYPD article, a separate one has to be made for this article. The contradictory statements in the Murder Incident section should be addressed as well. Other than that the rest are good things to consider and look at but not make or break for GA. I hope that helps and let me know if you have other questions. I'll keep it held for at least another week, let me know if you need more time. H1nkles ( talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick work. Unfortunately I am away from a computer until Monday. I will try and finalize the review beforehand but if I can't then I'll do it on Monday. H1nkles ( talk) 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The article looks good, you have done all that I asked so I will happily pass it to GA, congrats. H1nkles ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Per WP:Lead the lead is to be a summary of all the points brought up in the article. As such I don't feel the lead in this article meets the current standards. I don't see any mention of the manhunt, mourning or trial in the lead. This should be added to help the lead meet this standard.
This section is fine, I don't see any problems.
Is there no sentencing information on Bostic? I would assume he got the same as Woods but that is a hole given the fact that the other two have sentencing information. More to come. H1nkles ( talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there ever any discussion as to why they did it? I don't recall reading that in the article. A motive is a huge missing piece here that I didn't think to bring up in the previous review. H1nkles ( talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the article is succinct and well-written. I made some fixes as I went through, minor stuff mostly. I don't feel it meets the GA Criteria right now but I'm willing to hold the article for work to be done. I know you've been waiting a while for the review and you should have some time to make corrections or discuss the review. One issue beyond what I've raised above is that of overlinking. This is more of a pet peeve of mine. Per WP:Link words in common English usage do not need to be linked. I went through and delinked some of the words but there are others like "cracker" and "tuna fish" and "jail" that I would delink. It's a judgment call. It's not a huge deal but I thought I'd bring it up.
The big deals that you should really address to bring the article to GA standing would be the reference issues, the lead, the need for a reference for the neighbor fugitive transport issue in the Manhunt section, and the map problem. I'll hold the article for a week or so and I certainly welcome discussion on the issues I've raised. I'm a fairly pragmatic reviewer and would be happy to hear any dissenting opinions. H1nkles ( talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Second Review Overall Comments So the article is coming along nicely. Unfortunately some of what I didn't catch in the first read through is coming up in the second run. I apologize for this and I know it means some more work. Not all of my suggestions in the second read through are critical for GA. I would say the comment about motive is a big glaring comprehensive hole. Were they involved in a crime, did they steal the car? What possessed them to just open fire? If there is no motive then say that and reference it. Also there is no Fair-Use rationale for using the NYPD badge at the top of the page. The FU rationale is for use on the NYPD article, a separate one has to be made for this article. The contradictory statements in the Murder Incident section should be addressed as well. Other than that the rest are good things to consider and look at but not make or break for GA. I hope that helps and let me know if you have other questions. I'll keep it held for at least another week, let me know if you need more time. H1nkles ( talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick work. Unfortunately I am away from a computer until Monday. I will try and finalize the review beforehand but if I can't then I'll do it on Monday. H1nkles ( talk) 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The article looks good, you have done all that I asked so I will happily pass it to GA, congrats. H1nkles ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)