Talk:Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy/GA1

GA nominee

On first reading

• reference a in the opening paragraph does not go anywhere
• put the long quote in blockquote or c quote format
• look at ...included |, Thomas H. Lacey, and later, Samuel Q. Richardson... text, has a format gone wrong, also at this moment in the article I do not know the significance of Thomas H. Lacey, and Samuel Q. Richardson
• He was brought to Frankfort, tried before an examining court, and released. He agreed to stay in Frankfort for ten days to allow the court to finish its investigation. then just further on ...Beauchamp's trial began 8 May 1826... a link should be made, when was the decision made' why, how? Also 8 May 1826 is wikilinked but this actually has no releverence to the article, and the reader gains little from it. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive D1

The first review seems to be full of do this improve that, but that is I am afraid the nature of the beast. It is a subject I knew nothing about and now I do, it was informative and interesting, sometimes a difficult combination. On a personal note I would like to see a wider selection of references and ones that I as a reader can access. I will ask others to take a look. Well done you know how to put together an article for wikipedia, long may you edit. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Here are my responses.

• footnote "a": Fixed. This was a copy-paste error.
• quote: Changed to cquote.
• link format: Typo, fixed. I removed the other two names. I just included them because I had them, and because an earlier version of the article included the fact that John Waring later killed Samuel Q. Richardson in an incident unrelated to the Beauchamp-Sharp tragedy.
• I've added as much information as I've been able to find thus far on the gap between the arrest and trial. There is still a gap between the arrest in November and the indictment in March, but I don't have information to fill in that gap at this point. Presumably, the commonwealth's attorney found enough evidence during the ten-day delay from November 10 to November 20, kept Beauchamp incarcerated, and the wheels of justice just turned so slowly that it was March before an indictment was returned.

I also would like a larger range of resources that everyone can edit, but apparently, there isn't a lot out there on the subject. I prefer to provide publicly-accessible references if possible. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that as per WP:MOSQUOTE, cquote is to never be used for block quoting, and blockquotes should be 4+ lines in length or multi paragraphs, so I learn something new as well. Personally I believe cquote reminds the reader that they are still reading a quote not the article. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a informative and interesting piece of work.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   to add that bit extra another image or two would be great, and a reference that readers can access.