Talk:Disappearance of Brianna Maitland/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Freikorp in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- "leaving her job at the Black Lantern Inn in" - since the Black Lantern Inn is not famous, mentioning it in the lead just unnecessarily complicates things. Just say she left her job at a restaurant in the lead and specify which restaurant in the body.
- You don't need the citation in the lead
- "rapes and murders" - do these terms really need to be wikilinked?
- "To date, Maitland's disappearance remains unsolved" - see WP:REALTIME
- "her living arrangements were unstable" - can you elaborate on this?
- "Her mother, Kellie, " - this is used twice within three paragraphs. I'd say you don't have to clarify 'mother' and 'Kellie' together on the second occasion. One of the two terms should be sufficient.
- "Kellie and her husband, Bruce," - your choice of words here make it sound like Bruce is not Brianna's father, yet the early life section indicates that he is
- There are two uses of "didn't" in the 'Witness sightings' section. See MOS:N'T.
- In the 'Initial findings' section we are introduced to the fact that Brianna had extensive martial arts training. This is the kind of information that should be presented in the 'Early life' section.
- Do you think we can give some indication to the reader of when bringbrihome.org went offline? The last date I can find on Archive.org is March 2009 [1] though Archive.is shows it still being online in 2015: [2]
- "According to a March 2017 article published in the Burlington Free Press, the reward remained unclaimed" - I'd reword this to say the reward was "still available".
- "The results of the DNA tests were not made public at the time" - I'd drop 'at the time' as redundant as they (presumably) haven't been made public at all.
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Checklinks finds several dead urls [3]. I'd also strongly recommend you archive all your links while you still can as well to prevent link rot
- "Mikkilineni, Rupa (9 December 2008). "Vermont teen vanishes on way home from work". Retrieved 19 March 2014." - This source needs to be attributed to CNN.
- ""Missing Vermont teen". Dateline NBC. 6 May 2004." - This source needs more parameters. If it is a TV broadcast you are citing, instead of using Template:Cite news you need to use Template:Cite av media and specify that the 'medium' was a television braodcast
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Are you sure you can't find more info on her early life? Surely one of your sources mentions, for example, what her hobbies were.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Good work overall. Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Drown Soda, just checking how you're going with this as we're half way through the seven day period this review will stay open. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I'm about to get on it now; apologies, I thought I would have had time to get here by now. I will start making some changes tonight addressing the review. Will check back in when all's said and done, and then move over to review the Ms Dhu article. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I believe I've addressed your points here and made the proper alterations. I also archived several sources, though there are a couple (such as the Burlington Free Press) that for whatever reason are non-archivable at the Internet Archive. I tried to manually archive with archive.is, but also had no luck. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. It's looking really good. I'm happy for this to pass now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I believe I've addressed your points here and made the proper alterations. I also archived several sources, though there are a couple (such as the Burlington Free Press) that for whatever reason are non-archivable at the Internet Archive. I tried to manually archive with archive.is, but also had no luck. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I'm about to get on it now; apologies, I thought I would have had time to get here by now. I will start making some changes tonight addressing the review. Will check back in when all's said and done, and then move over to review the Ms Dhu article. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)