Talk:Vernon Jones/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 12:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will be starting soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a fine article, but still needs some improvement.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose[edit]

"rateed", typo, I assume. Done
2 duplicate links.
citations in the Infobox and lead are unecessary.
Everything in the lead and Infobox should be in the body.

Referencing[edit]

Fix the "citation needed" tag.
Four dead links.
One fact without a source at the end of the "DeKalb county ceo" section.
No space between citations. Done
No space between period and citation. Done

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl Henderson: Are you still completing this review? If not, are you OK with me failing it?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. For the last month my father has been in the ICU with West Nile, and I've not been able to concentrate on doing complex Wikipedia tasks. I've limited my work here (mostly) to Graphics Lab photo improvements and fixing partial citations, as neither requires a lot of thought on my part. I would like to work on the issues you identified, and believe I can fix most of them. I will do so as soon as I'm at a place mentally where I think I can do a decent job of it. If you need to go ahead and close this for admin reasons, I understand.

If you don't have to close it, I have a question for you in regards to dead links: Is it necessary that I provide new links to support the facts asserted, or can I rely on the original writers who examined the original Atlanta Constitution Journal articles (which are no longer on the web) and use the citations without links? Carl Henderson (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]