Talk:John W. Winters/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I'm done here; not going to bother putting this on hold since you're usually fairly quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 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 my concerns addressed

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

   All concerns addressed

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:

   No issues

   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:

   References look solid

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks are clear

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool flagged one sentence that was too close to the source; I've fixed it.

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):

   No extraneous information

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Comments addressed

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 issues addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

• The article glosses over the move from NYC back to Raleigh; is any information available?
  • The source did not provide any details.
• "was disqualified from service due to scars left by a childhood illness" This is very strange; certainly the first time I've heard of someone being disqualified for evidence of injury. Does the source have any details?
  • Unfortunately not.
• "on the account of his black race" A bit awkward: I would suggest "because he was black", or even "due to racial discrimination"
  • Changed to "because he was black".
• "Raleigh's black leaders" "leaders" is a bit peacockish. I'd suggest "wealthy or influential black men" or some such.
  • Changed to "black affluent men".
• "excluded from white groups" "groups" is weird. "Clubs"?
  • Changed to clubs.
• "he helped devise a strategy" Do we know what this was? If not, I'd suggest simplifying to "participated in efforts to increase..."
  • Source was not specific, changed to "participated in efforts to increase".
• "ran as a Democrat for a Senate seat of the 14th district, representing portions of Wake, Lee and Harnett counties" It's odd to place these details after the sentence about his first run; do we know if that was for the same seat, and with the same affiliation? If so, I'd suggest reordering.
  • @Vanamonde93: This is probably the case, but the source did not specify. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)