Talk:Mathew Charles Lamb/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating topic! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A couple of the section headers are a bit long. For example, "Verdict: Lamb is found not guilty by reason of insanity" could be just "Verdict". "Lamb displays further improvement once released" is another one that could stand to be trimmed.

I have trimmed each of these appropriately. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time at Kingston Penitentiary, "Lamb's bizarre activities continued throughout his time at the penitentiary, and in fact became even stranger." The next source (Sutton) doesn't back up this sentence, so at this point I'm assuming that it's supposed to act as a summary of the information following. However, describing his activities as "bizarre" and strange doesn't really seem right to me. Psychotic and hypomanic, yes, bizarre, no. At this point, it reads to me as though these words (bizarre, strange) are the main editor's opinion as to his actions, rather than the opinion of the sources used in the article.

Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time at Kingston Penitentiary, "found with a broomstick up his bottom". "Up his bottom" is a little unencyclopedic...sounds like we're trying to make this readable for little kids.

Was trying to avoid repetition of the word "rectum". Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the repetition is fine, since the word is only used twice, several sentences apart.

Military career in Rhodesia, "on Fireforce duty on Operation Thrasher," What is Fireforce duty?

I have clarified, "Fireforce counter-insurgency duty". I reasoned a reader could click the wikilink for more on Fireforce. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally missed the first link. Yeah, it looks good now.

Reactions to death, "They demanded a printed retraction and apology, which the Herald gave soon after." Why did the Herald retract and apologize if they had printed true information?

The Newsweek article doesn't say; it simply says that "the paper obliged". I could not find the edition of the Herald containing the apology. I presume they wanted to avoid embarrassing the army or further offending his friends, but I can't just put that in unsourced. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can't find a source for it, then don't put it in. It would be a great bit of information if you eventually find a source discussing it, though.

Reactions to death. Are there any sources on the reactions of the Canadian people? His relatives? His psychiatrists?

I found another article from the Windsor Star of 11 November 1976 which I have integrated. Have a look in the military service and reactions section. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sources look very good. A few spotchecks reveal no cause for concern with copyvios, sources covering information, etc.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I think that your captions are a bit long, overall. For example, the photo in the Military career in Rhodesia gives information about Lamb's military career that is already described in both the lead and the text, leading this to be the third presentation of the information. The other two images in the body contain similar excessive information in their captions.

I have trimmed this caption and the one with the prison picture, but left the Windsor landscape caption intact; this information is not given anywhere else in the article. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a very nice article on a man that I had never heard of before. A few comments above; when these are resolved, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. Are you planning to take this to FAC? Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am intending to take it to FAC, yes. Thank you for the review and compliments on the article. I am glad you like it. I hope I have resolved your concerns now. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a good chance at FAC. My prose is not always the best, so I'm sure there are things that I missed, but I think that it's in very nice shape. A run at PR never hurts, especially if you can snag Finetooth or Brianboulton as your reviewer. I've left a few comments above, but everything has been resolved and so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing - I had a hard time deciding where to list this at WP:GA. I eventually put it under "Military people", but that doesn't feel exactly right. "Psychology" seems to be more for psychologists and psychological theory than patients, but maybe I'm wrong. If you don't like where I put it, please feel free to move it wherever you would like :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! I am now going to list at FAC, and we'll see where it goes from there. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]