Talk:Ed Bradley/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 21:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

No obvious Quick-fail issues. Stable/no edit-warring, no maintenance tags, per Earwig's Copyvio tool - no copyright violations. Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
To the point, very spare in its style - definitely not a hagiography which I appreciate very much. Shearonink (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Very much so. I can find no fault with its layout. Shearonink (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And no weasel words either...nicely done. Shearonink (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I really tried to cut all of those. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Style-wise the refs agree with the MOS etc. Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: {{GAList/check|yes}
I have just started going through the cites but one jumps out at me - Ref #31 is almost a bare URL and needs more detail (especially the date). Shearonink (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref#14/The New York Times obit. The Times is behind a subscription-only paywall. If you institute a wayback machine/webarchive linkage that will enable verifiability. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #54 - misspells the word "annual" in the article/pdf title. Shearonink (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #10 - <ref name="CBS8"> - is both his CBS bio and his obituary. The bio-date is July 8, 1998 and then it appears to have been updated at the time of Bradley's death in 2006. The dates need to be added. Also, I think that linkrot could be a real issue with this URL, I would check to see if it's been archived and add that info to the cite. Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #5/Ebony magazine/The Way They Were - lacks Page # and author. If author isn't spelled out, then "Staff" is acceptable. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #9 - LexisNexis is behind a paywall. Shearonink (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)z[reply]

Ref #56 - Radio Television Digital News Association/Past Honorees. dead link. Shearonink (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #33 - As it pertains to this sentence "In 2007, he was inducted into the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame by the Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia." is somewhat problematic. I think this sentence needs to be adjusted to make it clear that the Broadcast Pioneers are not (possibly) a nationwide organization but a local/Philadelphia group, something along the lines of "In 2007, he was inducted into the Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia's Hall of Fame." Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #44 - "ABC, PBS lead news Emmy nominees". The author is credited as "Staff", so that should be added rather than left blank. Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through with that level of detail! Here's what I did:
Ref 5: Partly done Page number added! Template:Cite news says not to add "staff" or similar descriptions to the authorship of an source (typically this also generates a "generic name" error message, but that isn't happening here for some reason). Instead it says to add background text saying the author was not stated. I've done so on this cite.

Ref 9: Done I added quotes from the article in question to the cite. Let me know if that works!

Ref 10: Partly done This one is weird. It's not clear when the page was updated (oldest archive link is December 2021), and I don't want to add the old, clearly incorrect date here. I did add an archive link. If you have any thoughts on what to do about the date I'm all ears!

Ref 14: Done Archive link added!

Ref 31: Partly done This one is tricky. Template:USBill is just kind of strange. I tried something here I think fills out the ref a bit more but looks a bit weird IMO, let me know what you think!

Looks good. The date is the main thing I was looking for. Otherwise it would have been incomplete. Shearonink (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 33: Done That wording is much better! Great suggestion!

Ref 44: Partly done This is another instance where Template:Cite news says not to add generic names, so I added the background text like I did with cite 5

Ref 54 Done fixed!

Ref 56: Done archive link added!
M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted some more "annunals". Rather than bother you, I went ahead and corrected the spelling. Hope you don't mind. Shearonink (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last reference issue:
Ref # 42 - "Past Winners". Long Island University. Retrieved October 23, 2022. Needs more detail, as in Past Winners of *what*. In this case it's the George Polk Awards which is a Wikipedia article and should be linked within the citation. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I updated it in a way I think fits the parameters. @Shearonink: Let me know if that works for you! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section is a Yes now. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. It contains no original research:
Statement about the person are backed up with references. Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran Earwig's tool. Looking good. Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Covers the facts but with information that adds to the reader's understanding of the man. Shearonink (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
At first I thought the information about the earring was trivia but realized I only think that because I am looking at it from now and not from then. Shearonink (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had that thought at first too. Enough reporting out there about it changed my mind. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Detected no POV bs. Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Very stable. Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Valid copyright licenses. Shearonink (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
All of the images are relevant and placed appropriately within the text. Shearonink (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All the other parameters are fine. The references just need a bit of fine-tuning. As soon as that is done/discussed, I think I'll be able to finish this GA2 up. Shearonink (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for those adjustments to the various references mentioned in 2B above. I am going to give the article another couple deep read-throughs to make sure I didn't miss anything but everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One last reference issue to take care of please, then I'll finish up this GA Nom/Review. Almost there... Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All issues taken care of. Fulfills the GA criteria. Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.