Talk:Jack Ruby Shoots Lee Harvey Oswald/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review AryKun. I think I have completed the items. Bruxton (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lead's too short. Y I will see how I can lengthen it.
• "History" Should be called Background. Y changed
• There's no background on Jackson's career before the photograph. The article body doesn't even name him, just randomly starts with "Jackson". The Key Images of American Life book has this info. Y I was not sure that it is within the scope of this article, but I can make a section for the photographer if it is required.
• The note is extraneous information not suitable for this article.Y I thought the gun was relevant and I really liked those details but I erased it
• "Description" Doesn't actually describe the photo for the most part, should be called "Photograph" instead imo. Y
• "Jackson returned...he had." Not reception. Y moved to description
• "The image also won the Texas Headliners Club award, and it was called the best new picture, winning the Sigma Delta Chi Award" to "The image also won the Texas Headliners Club award and the Sigma Delta Chi award for Best News Picture of the Year".Y
• The word "image" is used too many times, it starts to feel repetitive. Yyou probably meant photograph is used too many times because image was only twice
• "In 2019...composed picture." This entire section doesn't really do a great job of summarizing the reception. It feels somewhat randomly thrown together and doesn't really make a point about what parts of the photo were great.yes, it is a collection of quotes about the photo and impact. I am unsure how to rework
• Notes and See Also should be separate sections. Y erasing notes as the only note was the one about the gun
• The prose in the article seems a bit weak overall; the quotes aren't integrated with the text well, there's a fair bit of repetition of words, and bits like "The scheduled...11:00 a.m., however." seem like they could be tightened.Y I reworked the prose here
• The article linked for Dallas News calls it The Dallas Morning News? Also, the says I'm not allowed access on my server, although I don't know whether that's because the link's down or because I'm not in the US. Y fixed

• The prose still has too many unnecessary pronouns that make it sound stilted; eg "Jackson was born on April 8, 1934 and he grew", "The image won the 1964 Pulitzer Prize for Photography and it received". Removing the second pronoun in these cases and others like would make the article read better.Y Tried to reduce pronouns, I think what is left is necessary, if I missed addressing anything specific I can correct
• I'd put the Photographer section before the rest of background to maintain chronology.Y fixed
• "He had an...plane crash" Not really relevant to this article; when I was talking about background, I was specifically referring to somewhat more relevant details I saw in The Key Images of American Life book, although that page seems to have been removed from GBooks now.Y I reduced the specificity of the section
• hometownsource.com is not the work, it seems to be a reprint site for a bunch of local newspapers that should be cited instead. Y fixed
• www.lib.ncsu.edu should be replaced with NCSU Libraries. Y fixed
• Otherwise fine now I suppose. AryKun (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@AryKun: I completed the fixes listed here, please let me know if there are more suggestions. Bruxton (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed