Talk:Roger A. Pryor/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems. ✓ Pass Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • I feel that the 'Lead could be expanded a little. Perhaps two more sentences summarizing his career. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is well referenced.', I assume good faith for all print sources cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear to be reliable

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is reasonably broad in its scope. His wife is mentioned at the end, when did he marry? Did he have children? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • The article is correctly focusssed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • adheres to WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • no evidence of edit warring or instability. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are tagged and copyright status check out at present. Please note that changes in Wikipedia licensing may change the status of these pictures, see Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain/Mistagged_images#Mistagged_public-domain_images. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • A caption for the photograph in the infobox would be good, perhaps when taken, his status at that time? Likewise for the later picture (looking at Lincoln) Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • A few minor points: Lead expansion, reconsider caption for photos, on hold for now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually considering reviewing this, so I'll add some comments I don't see mentioned above.

• citations should all be either before or after punctuation; consistency, please
• What is The South?
• What is the "so-called conversion"? (If it's something he's somehow known for, why isn't it in the lead?)

(My guess is that this has to do with a change of attitude about war-related issues. You really need to write more about this. If possible, you should also characterize his legal work, especially if it deals with war-related issues.) -- Magic♪piano 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully concur with all of those points, thanks Magic. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead still needs expansion. Some information about his wife and family is needed. The points raised by Magic have not been addressed. I am failing this for now, please bring back when these points have ben addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)