Talk:Clarence Lightner/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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

@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?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues addressed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   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:

   One concern with dead source addressed

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks clear

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spotchecks clear, Earwig's tool clear, though it flags titles he held

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   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?
  • @Vanamonde93: No, it seems permanently lost. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @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)
      • @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)