Login
Login

Talk:Clarence Lightner/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Clarence Lightner/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Clarence Lightner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

::{{re|Indy beetle}} Thanks for your patience; I've finished, just a couple more for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

=Checklist=

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
  2. :A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  3. :: All issues addressed.
  4. :B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  5. ::
  6. Is it verifiable with no original research?
  7. :A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  8. ::
  9. :B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  10. :: One concern with dead source addressed
  11. :C. It contains no original research: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  12. :: Spotchecks clear
  13. :D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  14. :: Spotchecks clear, Earwig's tool clear, though it flags titles he held
  15. Is it broad in its coverage?
  16. :A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  17. ::
  18. :B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|Y}}
  19. ::
  20. Is it neutral?
  21. :It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  22. :: No issues
  23. Is it stable?
  24. : It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  25. ::
  26. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
  27. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  28. :: Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
  29. :B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  30. ::
  31. Overall:
  32. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|Y}}
  33. ::All feedback taken care of, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

=Comments=

  • Can you find links for "black" and "white" at first use in the body that would be appropriate for the US context?
  • I've simply inked to black people and white people if that suffices.
  • That's fine; African Americans and White Americans would be another option.
  • Link "football" and "quarterback"
  • Done.
  • Do we know where he served in WWII?
  • Sources do not specify.
  • "He later served as president" "He" is ambiguous
  • Changed to Lightner.
  • Find a link for "desegregate"
  • Linked to School integration in the United States.
  • "During his tenure" tenure on what?
  • Err to which instance are you referring? I have now clarified all anyhow.
  • "Mayor pro tempore" shouldn't "pro tempore" be italicized?
  • It is a Latin phrase, but its also an official title, like President pro tempore of the United States Senate, so italicization seems unnecessary.
  • Link "South" (in the American context)
  • "Southern" is already linked to Southern United States.
  • Missed that.
  • Link "mass transit system"
  • Done.
  • The first paragraph of "later activities" is verging on proseline. I'm not going to hold up the GA review over this, but I would suggest varying the sentence structure a little there.
  • Minor revision made.
  • Acronyms, while useful, can be confusing, and I recommend avoiding them where possibly. NCCU and CIAA are both used just once; you could substitute the full form without any length issues.
  • Done.
  • Can you find an archive url for the dead link?
  • {{ping| Vanamonde93}} No, it seems permanently lost. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • {{re|Indy beetle}} strange. Given that it's a quote from a living person, I'm not too happy signing off on a permanently unverifiable link. Can you look for an alternative? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • {{ping|Vanamonde93}} I've found another source to corroborate the existence of the foundation, and have thus added that, but nothing for the quote, so I've removed it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)