From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst  talk  00:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Worley in 2023
Worley in 2023

Created by ClydeFranklin ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richard Worley (police officer); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. reply

Article has some WP:CLOP which should be addressed. Earwig. Lightburst ( talk) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ ClydeFranklin and Thebiguglyalien: Lightburst ( talk) 00:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
 Working on it... CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Lightburst,  reworded and gave the person wbo added it a {{ uw-paraphrase}}. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 00:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply


GA Review

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Worley (police officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanderwaalforces ( talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I will review this. Good luck to us in advance. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

1—Well-written

1a—prose

I fixed parts needing attention. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 22:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

1b—MOS

2—Verifiable with no original research

2a—reference section

Everything fine. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2b—reliable sources

Sources are reliable and and well cited. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2c—OR

No original research detected. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2d—copyvio and plagiarism

No detection of plagiarism/copyvio. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

3—Broad in its coverage

3a—major aspects

This article is generally not broad in it's coverage. Because this is a BLP, even though some major aspects are covered. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

3b—focused

This is good to go. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

4—NPOV

This is good to go. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

5—Stable

No recent edit/move wars, so this is okay. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

6a and b—appropriate use of images with suitable captions

Image on infobox (licensed in cc-by-2.0) was extracted from another image which was licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0. Also, image is relevant because it is an image of Richard Worley. So this is okay. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

7—Overall

Pass/Fail:
While there's an issue with the coverage which is the only criteria not met here, I am happy to give this article a quick pass. Congratulations!
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst  talk  00:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Worley in 2023
Worley in 2023

Created by ClydeFranklin ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richard Worley (police officer); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. reply

Article has some WP:CLOP which should be addressed. Earwig. Lightburst ( talk) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ ClydeFranklin and Thebiguglyalien: Lightburst ( talk) 00:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
 Working on it... CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Lightburst,  reworded and gave the person wbo added it a {{ uw-paraphrase}}. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 00:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply


GA Review

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Worley (police officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanderwaalforces ( talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I will review this. Good luck to us in advance. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

1—Well-written

1a—prose

I fixed parts needing attention. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 22:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

1b—MOS

2—Verifiable with no original research

2a—reference section

Everything fine. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2b—reliable sources

Sources are reliable and and well cited. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2c—OR

No original research detected. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2d—copyvio and plagiarism

No detection of plagiarism/copyvio. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

3—Broad in its coverage

3a—major aspects

This article is generally not broad in it's coverage. Because this is a BLP, even though some major aspects are covered. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

3b—focused

This is good to go. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

4—NPOV

This is good to go. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

5—Stable

No recent edit/move wars, so this is okay. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

6a and b—appropriate use of images with suitable captions

Image on infobox (licensed in cc-by-2.0) was extracted from another image which was licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0. Also, image is relevant because it is an image of Richard Worley. So this is okay. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

7—Overall

Pass/Fail:
While there's an issue with the coverage which is the only criteria not met here, I am happy to give this article a quick pass. Congratulations!
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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook