Talk:Richard Worley (police officer)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:13, 18 October 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: 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[edit]

1—Well-written[edit]

1a—prose[edit]

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

1b—MOS[edit]

Lead: The lead can be reworked, can you expand it so that it summarises main points from the body? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Layout:
Words to watch: @ClydeFranklin: Throughout the article, it's Richard J. Worley, what is the J. initial? Please add in full if possible or remove entirely. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Police career section appears to be close paraphrasing of www.baltimorepolice.org/about/police-commissioner. It needs to be rewritten. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His, DOB is also not clear, is there no source confirming his exact date of birth? Instead of saying 1964 or 1965. Otherwise, let's use circa by implementing the {{circa}} template.

Something like this would make sense: Richard Worley (c. 1965) is an American police officer ... then on the subsequent occurence, you could just use c. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2—Verifiable with no original research[edit]

2a—reference section[edit]

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

2b—reliable sources[edit]

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

2c—OR[edit]

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

2d—copyvio and plagiarism[edit]

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

3—Broad in its coverage[edit]

3a—major aspects[edit]

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[edit]

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

4—NPOV[edit]

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

5—Stable[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.