![]() | Richard Gerald Jordan has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 23, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Richard Gerald Jordan appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 December 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Afddiary ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! I have started a Good Article review of this page so I can help with the backlog and "pay it forward," so to speak, since I just had one of my own articles awarded GA status. Although I have created and heavily participated in editing one GA so far, this is my very first GA review, so please be patient with me as I work through learning the expectations!
Afddiary (
talk)
15:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
08/02/2022 - This has been addressed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
08/02/2022 - All of the above issues have been adequately addressed, save for one, which I assume has not been addressed due to the lack of sources to elaborate on what Jordan's friends, relatives, and death row guards said in his defense. One final, minor suggestion: in the "Early life" section, you might link the word "physical" to physical examination. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | As far as I could tell, for all sourced articles, you used links to the article images rather than links to clippings of the individual articles; you also archived these article image links. The result is that people who do not have Newspapers.com subscriptions cannot access the texts of these articles and are taken to a paywall; only through the direct article image link (and unfortunately not through the archived article image link), they may either purchase a subscription, or access a rough automated transcription of the articles via optical character recognition (OCR text) for free, which is generally not a problem unless the OCR text is illegible. The archives will take readers to the same paywall and not to the OCR text, and thus, they don't really archive useful information that could be used to verify the sourced information later.
08/02/2022 - This has been addressed. I deeply appreciate you clipping all of the articles, especially as it was something that was not necessary but a kind gesture. :) |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Even with the above critiques of the specific links used for each source, each source is reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Not 100% finished checking this. BY SECTION:
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Stays focused on the topic and addresses all important main aspects, from the personal life of the subject, to the legal issues in his case. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Neutral tone achieved and maintained. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No editing wars. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There are no images in the article.
07/25/2022: Unfortunately, due to uncertainty about the copyright status of all proposed images, I'm not sure if we could ever get pictures in this article. Even so, pictures are desired, but not mandatory, for a Good Article. As someone who is very new to this GA process and relatively inexperienced when it comes to verifying the copyright status of pictures, I personally don't feel well equipped to decide whether or not any of the proposed pictures would be acceptable to include on Wikipedia. I'll mark this as a "yes," but maybe at a later time, someone else with more experience in this area could verify the copyright status of the proposed pictures for this article and include them. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No images yet, but the issues here have been addressed above. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | I can check on plagiarism/copyright violation either later tonight, or tomorrow. Also, I humbly ask that you be patient with me if I add or update any of these sections over the next few days, as I sometimes struggle with focus and may have missed some things on my first few looks through the article, or I may have changed my mind on other things that may not have raised concern the first times around. I apologize if this causes any inconvenience.
08/02/2022 - All other concerns in this article have been addressed, save for me continuing to check the sources for copyright violations, which, although belated, I am currently in the process of doing. Unless there are any problems there, I don't think there's anything left for you to do. Thanks for everything you've done to work on and improve this article! |
Hello Afddiary -
Thank you so much for your work on this review. I'm replying down here because I wasn't sure if you were okay with me responding to your points within the table. I appreciate your insights. I implemented your suggestions with a few exceptions. Please don't worry if the reviewing slows down. I am making a stressful job transition this week and next week, so I may not be very timely myself.
My personal preference is to avoid short sections most of the time, and I haven't found enough information on each trial to warrant much expansion, but I will keep looking. I'm still looking for a few other things, like the trial testimony of Jordan's relatives and the prison guard. I will see if I can find the names of the lawsuits, but I think it may come down to primary sources. Good catch on the link to bifurcation; I added it, just a little earlier in the article than suggested. I changed "state supreme court" to U.S. Supreme Court because I originally goofed up; the source clarifies that the reversal stemmed from a SCOTUS ruling, not from the state.
I've clipped a few articles here and there, and I can do it for this entry if necessary. I view it as a nice-to-do - but something that is beyond the scope of GA. Unless I am misreading, WP:FNNR (the layout style guideline referred to in criterion 2a) doesn't require convenience links. Even if the link goes completely dead, the citation should be complete enough for a reader to locate the source (either a physical copy or a link to another archiving service).
I really dislike submitting a GAN without images (or publishing any article without them, to be honest). The issue is that I keep running into copyright concerns with this subject. The MDOC information page doesn't clarify the copyright status of the mugshot, and it doesn't specify which agency took the photo. Some state DOC mugshots will fall under WP:Public domain because the images are created by a government agency, but this depends on the jurisdiction (and whether the DOC even took the photo). The newspaper image of Jordan is presumed to be copyrighted as well. Since Edwina Marter isn't a living person, we could ordinarily claim fair use on her image, but AP Newswire photos (or photos from other press agencies) generally violate the respect for commercial opportunities fair use criterion (see WP:NFCI #8). Heck, I'm tempted to use that image at Burl Cain (which is a free image), but it's not a great pic and Cain isn't that closely connected to Jordan.
Thanks for your work so far. It's no problem at all to go back and update various sections. I do that a lot as a reviewer. (I usually don't use GATable until the end of the review because I find that the updating can get too messy, but it's up to your personal preference as a reviewer.) I will try to watch out for new feedback. Feel free to ping me, especially if I don't seem to be responding. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Afddiary - I forgot to ping you recently when I finished addressing the above feedback. I have expanded the article a bit, giving each of Jordan's death sentences its own section. As I suspected, the reliable sources don't report the names of the legal cases as far as I can tell. I hate that we still don't have an image in the article, but I can't find one with an acceptable copyright status. I have a few GAs without images, and they usually involve living people in prison like this one or living people who spent much of their lives in prison like this one. Thanks for your work! Let me know what else I need to address. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 12:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Afddiary, Larry Hockett, where does this review stand? It's been over a month since the most recent post to this page, and the review was originally opened over three and a half months ago. Afddiary, if you don't have time, perhaps we could request a reviewer to finish up via second opinion. It looks like a second opinion is needed anyway regarding the image criteria, so perhaps whoever it is could finish the copyvio checks as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: OliveYouBean ( talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I've had a quick read of the article and read through the previous GA review. Seems like there shouldn't be any issues since the last review was almost complete. I'll still give all the criteria a look to make sure it's all good, but hopefully that doesn't take long and I can just focus on seeing if there's any copyvio issues.
OliveYouBean (
talk)
09:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | First trial (1976): I'll be fully honest, I had to look up what the word "impanel" means. It's pretty clear from context what it means, but for dummies like me it might be helpful to wikilink it to Jury selection? Completely up to you whether you think that makes sense.
All good. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Per MOS:CONTEXTLINK, I think "death row" and "murder" should probably be wikilinked in the first sentence as they both directly relate to his notability. From MOS:REALTIME I think that the second sentence should be qualified by "As of 2022" or something similar. He's not going to stop being the longest-serving until he's taken off death row or he dies, but he's going to stop being the oldest as soon as someone older is given the death penalty which could hypothetically happen.
All good. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Thank you so much for archiving most of the sources.
All good. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | All the sources are reliable. :) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | All good here too. :) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | All good! |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Covers everything really well. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Happy with this now. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fantastic neutral tone throughout. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Definitely stable, no edit wars. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No images used, which is fine as they're not mandatory and it looks like there's valid concerns about potential copyright problems with the images that could be used. There's always the chance to add more if images come up but that's definitely not an issue here. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No images. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Everything looks great! |
On a sort of unrelated note, I just want to say I appreciate the amount of work that's gone into this article. It was an interesting read and the writing is really good. OliveYouBean ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Larry Hockett ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC).
![]() | Richard Gerald Jordan has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 23, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Richard Gerald Jordan appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 December 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Afddiary ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! I have started a Good Article review of this page so I can help with the backlog and "pay it forward," so to speak, since I just had one of my own articles awarded GA status. Although I have created and heavily participated in editing one GA so far, this is my very first GA review, so please be patient with me as I work through learning the expectations!
Afddiary (
talk)
15:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
08/02/2022 - This has been addressed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
08/02/2022 - All of the above issues have been adequately addressed, save for one, which I assume has not been addressed due to the lack of sources to elaborate on what Jordan's friends, relatives, and death row guards said in his defense. One final, minor suggestion: in the "Early life" section, you might link the word "physical" to physical examination. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | As far as I could tell, for all sourced articles, you used links to the article images rather than links to clippings of the individual articles; you also archived these article image links. The result is that people who do not have Newspapers.com subscriptions cannot access the texts of these articles and are taken to a paywall; only through the direct article image link (and unfortunately not through the archived article image link), they may either purchase a subscription, or access a rough automated transcription of the articles via optical character recognition (OCR text) for free, which is generally not a problem unless the OCR text is illegible. The archives will take readers to the same paywall and not to the OCR text, and thus, they don't really archive useful information that could be used to verify the sourced information later.
08/02/2022 - This has been addressed. I deeply appreciate you clipping all of the articles, especially as it was something that was not necessary but a kind gesture. :) |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Even with the above critiques of the specific links used for each source, each source is reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Not 100% finished checking this. BY SECTION:
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Stays focused on the topic and addresses all important main aspects, from the personal life of the subject, to the legal issues in his case. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Neutral tone achieved and maintained. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No editing wars. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There are no images in the article.
07/25/2022: Unfortunately, due to uncertainty about the copyright status of all proposed images, I'm not sure if we could ever get pictures in this article. Even so, pictures are desired, but not mandatory, for a Good Article. As someone who is very new to this GA process and relatively inexperienced when it comes to verifying the copyright status of pictures, I personally don't feel well equipped to decide whether or not any of the proposed pictures would be acceptable to include on Wikipedia. I'll mark this as a "yes," but maybe at a later time, someone else with more experience in this area could verify the copyright status of the proposed pictures for this article and include them. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No images yet, but the issues here have been addressed above. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | I can check on plagiarism/copyright violation either later tonight, or tomorrow. Also, I humbly ask that you be patient with me if I add or update any of these sections over the next few days, as I sometimes struggle with focus and may have missed some things on my first few looks through the article, or I may have changed my mind on other things that may not have raised concern the first times around. I apologize if this causes any inconvenience.
08/02/2022 - All other concerns in this article have been addressed, save for me continuing to check the sources for copyright violations, which, although belated, I am currently in the process of doing. Unless there are any problems there, I don't think there's anything left for you to do. Thanks for everything you've done to work on and improve this article! |
Hello Afddiary -
Thank you so much for your work on this review. I'm replying down here because I wasn't sure if you were okay with me responding to your points within the table. I appreciate your insights. I implemented your suggestions with a few exceptions. Please don't worry if the reviewing slows down. I am making a stressful job transition this week and next week, so I may not be very timely myself.
My personal preference is to avoid short sections most of the time, and I haven't found enough information on each trial to warrant much expansion, but I will keep looking. I'm still looking for a few other things, like the trial testimony of Jordan's relatives and the prison guard. I will see if I can find the names of the lawsuits, but I think it may come down to primary sources. Good catch on the link to bifurcation; I added it, just a little earlier in the article than suggested. I changed "state supreme court" to U.S. Supreme Court because I originally goofed up; the source clarifies that the reversal stemmed from a SCOTUS ruling, not from the state.
I've clipped a few articles here and there, and I can do it for this entry if necessary. I view it as a nice-to-do - but something that is beyond the scope of GA. Unless I am misreading, WP:FNNR (the layout style guideline referred to in criterion 2a) doesn't require convenience links. Even if the link goes completely dead, the citation should be complete enough for a reader to locate the source (either a physical copy or a link to another archiving service).
I really dislike submitting a GAN without images (or publishing any article without them, to be honest). The issue is that I keep running into copyright concerns with this subject. The MDOC information page doesn't clarify the copyright status of the mugshot, and it doesn't specify which agency took the photo. Some state DOC mugshots will fall under WP:Public domain because the images are created by a government agency, but this depends on the jurisdiction (and whether the DOC even took the photo). The newspaper image of Jordan is presumed to be copyrighted as well. Since Edwina Marter isn't a living person, we could ordinarily claim fair use on her image, but AP Newswire photos (or photos from other press agencies) generally violate the respect for commercial opportunities fair use criterion (see WP:NFCI #8). Heck, I'm tempted to use that image at Burl Cain (which is a free image), but it's not a great pic and Cain isn't that closely connected to Jordan.
Thanks for your work so far. It's no problem at all to go back and update various sections. I do that a lot as a reviewer. (I usually don't use GATable until the end of the review because I find that the updating can get too messy, but it's up to your personal preference as a reviewer.) I will try to watch out for new feedback. Feel free to ping me, especially if I don't seem to be responding. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Afddiary - I forgot to ping you recently when I finished addressing the above feedback. I have expanded the article a bit, giving each of Jordan's death sentences its own section. As I suspected, the reliable sources don't report the names of the legal cases as far as I can tell. I hate that we still don't have an image in the article, but I can't find one with an acceptable copyright status. I have a few GAs without images, and they usually involve living people in prison like this one or living people who spent much of their lives in prison like this one. Thanks for your work! Let me know what else I need to address. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 12:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Afddiary, Larry Hockett, where does this review stand? It's been over a month since the most recent post to this page, and the review was originally opened over three and a half months ago. Afddiary, if you don't have time, perhaps we could request a reviewer to finish up via second opinion. It looks like a second opinion is needed anyway regarding the image criteria, so perhaps whoever it is could finish the copyvio checks as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: OliveYouBean ( talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I've had a quick read of the article and read through the previous GA review. Seems like there shouldn't be any issues since the last review was almost complete. I'll still give all the criteria a look to make sure it's all good, but hopefully that doesn't take long and I can just focus on seeing if there's any copyvio issues.
OliveYouBean (
talk)
09:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | First trial (1976): I'll be fully honest, I had to look up what the word "impanel" means. It's pretty clear from context what it means, but for dummies like me it might be helpful to wikilink it to Jury selection? Completely up to you whether you think that makes sense.
All good. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Per MOS:CONTEXTLINK, I think "death row" and "murder" should probably be wikilinked in the first sentence as they both directly relate to his notability. From MOS:REALTIME I think that the second sentence should be qualified by "As of 2022" or something similar. He's not going to stop being the longest-serving until he's taken off death row or he dies, but he's going to stop being the oldest as soon as someone older is given the death penalty which could hypothetically happen.
All good. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Thank you so much for archiving most of the sources.
All good. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | All the sources are reliable. :) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | All good here too. :) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | All good! |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Covers everything really well. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Happy with this now. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fantastic neutral tone throughout. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Definitely stable, no edit wars. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No images used, which is fine as they're not mandatory and it looks like there's valid concerns about potential copyright problems with the images that could be used. There's always the chance to add more if images come up but that's definitely not an issue here. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No images. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Everything looks great! |
On a sort of unrelated note, I just want to say I appreciate the amount of work that's gone into this article. It was an interesting read and the writing is really good. OliveYouBean ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Larry Hockett ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC).