Talk:Tracy Thorne-Begland/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looking forward to your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I promised to give a "second view" on the first nomination and that review closed before I got there, I thought that I'd better sign up for this second nomination. I should have some comments by the weekend, but I'm sorry there will be nothing for today. Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no hurry. =) Thanks for taking it on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I've done a quick read of this article and just on that basis it appears to be at or about GA-level. I've also used Checklinks and it showed that all external links were "live", but I've not checked any of them yet.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting at the Early life and military career section and finishing with the WP:Lead, and check it against WP:WIAGA. This is likely to take a day or so, but I'd like to have this review finished by Wednesday. Pyrotec (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and military career -

The first two paragraphs are good and compliant: the first paragraph is about early life and career, the second is about "comming out" on TV.
In contrast, the third starts with a one-sentence statement about his first discharge hearing and his testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. However, there seems to be an obvious gap: someone high must have seen the TV comming out and decided to "sack him", but that is completely missing from the article - we've done from TV to discharge hearing, other than "... discussion with his peers following his television disclosure was "a nonevent"", with nothing about events in between. Is there anything in the public domain that could be used to fill this gap?

I'll try to add a clearer transition here. Discharge for armed forces member was automatic pre-DADT, so events led naturally from the confession to the hearing. I think I have some sources that can explain the timeline more clearly, so will try to expand a bit from them tonight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Note: having read some more. I think the answer can be found in ref 12, which states: "He appeared on TV .... Days later the Navy notified Thorpe of discharge proceedings... ".Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph has one further inconsistency in "naming": it starts off with a hearing and a committee, but it then states: "He told the panel ..... During the hearing, ...". What does the "panel" refer to, its presumably either the hearing or the committee?
Considering the fourth and fifth paragraphs together, it is unclear how many times he was discharged and reinstated: having read the citations, it looks the fifth paragraph was an "amplification" of what appears in the fourth paragraph, not another cycle.

I think Stanford's legal center has some documentation on these cases. I don't have time tonight, but what I hope to do is construct for myself a timeline of the relevant hearings etc. sometime tomorrow, and then put a more logical narrative together for the article based on those sources. I agree that it's a bit confusing as written. (I'm confused just trying to remember it.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleared up the concerns in this section. The confusion stems from my misunderstanding of the 1994 New York Times article in which a Naval board recommended his discharge, and mis-interpreting this as a discharge. So it appears he was discharged twice, rather than thrice. Let me know if the timeline now seems to flow more sensibly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial nomination -
- unnamed first subsection -

As per my earlier comments, there is another noticeable gap: at the end of the previous section the article states: " He pursued a degree at the University of Richmond School of Law, graduating in 1997." and now its at "In 2012, when Thorne-Begland had served 12 years as a prosecutor ....". Is there any citable material covering this missing 15 years, of law practice?

Not much that I can find. This source appears to have been written in 2011 or so [1] but (pre-nomination) still only covers his military wrangles. Sources written during the nomination fight simply mention his 12 yrs as a prosecutor. Since he never became the city's lead attorney (and it's not a big city to begin with), he probably never got any high-profile enough cases to get significant coverage, is my guess. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant.

- Responses -

This subsection appears to be compliant.

- Judgeship -

This subsection appears to be compliant.

Personal life -

This section appears to be compliant.

WP:Lead -

This appears to adequately summarise the contents of the body of the article. Note: the article is quite short, and this is reflected in the Lead. However, I regard the Lead as being compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and WP:Lead.

At this stage, I'm putting the review "On Hold", I would expect to be awarding the article GA-status once the outstanding "points" have been resolved / addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'll start on these improvements now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concerns, but please let me know if you'd like to see anything else on these subjects--glad to keep working on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done a minor expansion of the Lead: I'm not too good at American-English, so if it does not read right, you are welcome to change it.

I'm happy now with the article, so I'll "pass" it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Not applicable - no images.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Not applicable - no images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In the light of improvements /clarifications carried out during the period of this review, and the one before, I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a "fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate the suggestions as well as your saving me another three months' wait on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]