Talk:Jena Six/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Hi. I'm going to review this GA nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ;) I had some knowledge of this event, and I was pleasantly surprised that it was totally NPOV! Good job everyone who worked on this. I think everything checks out, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this to GA status. Below are my rationale:

1.Well-worded, organized
2.Plenty of reliable refs
3.Relevant events
4.NPOV!
5.stable
6.pics have tags

Now, for the criticism: This still needs work before it is nominated for FA, but nothing too big to stop it from being a GA. There are some places, especially when describing the event, that do not flow very well because of the lack of clarity of the events (see the court case proceedings). Also, it is not specified how some things before the attack on Barker relate to the assault and the Jena Six Case. You might want to make sure everything is obviously relevant. Here are a lot of ideas, take what you will from them. Basically make sure everything is crystal clear and relevant and seamless. If I can be of any service, you know where to find me! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augh! First pic has a MetsBot tag! I think it's an incorrectly placed tag (the image has a public domain tag also), but you need to check that before you go for FA.
IMO, it'd be nice if the entire article was in chronological order (see Reprecusions section, particularly the stuff about the arson and the later assault), but I realize that it's probably not possible. Just a suggestion, though.
There are a lot of "According to"s and "It has been reported that"s, especially at the beginning, and they're affecting how the article flows. Again, it'll be hard to get rid of these, because of the nature of the incident.
In Arson, please update the sentence "Another sales tax increase, for similar purposes, is on the March 8, 2008 ballot."
Also in the Arson section, you start by saying it was cited as being racially-motivated, and at the end, it's not. You might want to put the two sentences together: "Originally it was cited as being racially motivated... Now it is not because ...". Also, if it wasn't racially motivated and isn't related to the Jena Six, does it deserve an entire section in the Jena Six article?
Same thing goes for the Fair Barn party and the convenience store sections. Do they really merit an entire section in this article? You might try combining all racial tension sections prior to the actual Jena Six assault to one section. Just a suggestion. :)
Haha I went to move the convenience store picture and I see that it's already been done! It'd be nice if you could find a way to move it, but I guess it's okay where it is.
I moved the last two sentences in Assault on Barker' to The other five section, where I think they fit better, but feel free to move them back if there's a reason.
In Petitions you have a ^{citation needed} tag.
In Songs of Jena, the relevance of the tidbit about Bonami Armah's earlier Internet single could be challenged by an FA reviewer. You might consider getting rid of it.
In Action by members of Congress, you say that "Washington responded that the federal government had a limited role to play in the matter" to Rep. Lee's statment. Who specifically responded? The White house?
Has the Barker lawsuit been resolved yet?

I've resolved all these matters, and will simply note that the Barker suit remains pending. I'm going to ask for a peer review in preparation for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review addition[edit]

I'd like to point out that the lead for this article doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. For an article this size, the lead should be full four paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article. I'd like to see this fixed, or the article can no longer be listed as GA. The lead is one of the major aspects we look at as GA reviewers, and I'm afraid the reviewer who looked at this article was unaware. I have informed him/her of this requirement. Nikki311 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Check back in a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hasty, but I think that should do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough...great job! Nikki311 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of minors[edit]

An editor has objected to mentioning the subsequent legal problems of the Jena Six during the FAC of this article [1]. I think it is perfectly appropriate. It's gotten considerable coverage, and besides, it's public record. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the RfC (below?): If reliable sources have published it, then so should wikipedia. To say they must be protected in one POV. In my opinion it is unethical to not report notable news, including their names. If only criminals could have their names on wikipedia, it would be a sad project, lol.Yobmod (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]