Talk:Quanell X/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 15:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Deatonjr

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There is room for improvement (words like "exoteric" are not commonly used, and there's no need to show cents in "$20,000.00"), but the prose is generally fine.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lede should summarize all sections of the article. This one-sentence lede is clearly inadequate. The "Community activist" section reads like a collection of unrelated facts, and could use some organization. The McVicker cite in the "External links" section should either be used as a source for specific information, or should be removed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The refences section is fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	It is very important that all controversial statements be accurately sourced. This is a serious problem in the article. For instance, the article claims "The speech included chants of 'black power' and the exhortation for blacks to ignore 'white law.'", but the source given does not say anything remotely related to this. Many other claims in that paragraph (e.g. "Quanell X could not be heard over the noise, even when using a bullhorn") are not in any of the sources. This problem occurs throughout the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Except for the problem above, this is not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is material in the sources about his upbringing, criminal past, and more recent actions, that are not in the article. This article gives lots of attention to controversial information, but needs more information on the rest of his life.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	X has been a spokesman for several organizations, and has said many, many things which would be relevant to the article. But the quotes in the article seem picked with the sole purpose of casting him in a negative light. For instance, his "I say to Jewish America" quote is obviously incindiary, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with his entry and ejection from the Nation of Islam. Certainly he's a polarizing figure, but choosing only quotes to make him look bad is a violation of WP:BLP. There are other serious neutrality problems. The article mentions his bodyguard's legal problems, clearly intending to link them to Quanell X, but does not give any reason why they are relevant to X's biography. (Did X know about the sedition?) Also, the article says X went to Cleveland "to support 18 men allegedly involved in the gang rape of an 11 year old girl", but the sources don't say he was there to support them. These subtler POV problems pervade the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not currently a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is correctly sourced.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is appropriate, caption is good. More pictures would be useful.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article does not pass GA criteria at this time.