Talk:Richard Worley (police officer)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 00:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Worley in 2023

• ... that Richard Worley (pictured) played in minor baseball leagues and is now the commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department? Source: [1] (paywalled but archive should bypass that)
  • ALT1: ... that Richard Worley (pictured) unsuccessfully applied to become the chief of two different police departments before finally becoming the commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department? Source: [2] (same source, paywalled but archive should bypass that)
  • Reviewed: N/A (only my second nomination)
  • Comments: Please ping on reply. Picture fully optional.

Created by ClydeFranklin (talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richard Worley (police officer); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

•  Reviewing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• The article is just long enough, it's new enough, and it's referenced throughout. I don't see any evidence of copyvio.
• It looks like the article has been edited a few times since you last made an edit, introducing a few grammar errors in the prose. I suggest reading it over again to fix those. I removed a large image that had been placed above the infobox.
• The image is acceptable for use on the main page.
• QPQ not required.
• I prefer ALT0, but it's not at all surprising that a police commissioner has a criminal justice degree. I suggest removing that part.
• I advise against ALT1, as it's best to avoid commenting on a BLP's failures on the main page.
• The article just needs a quick once over and preferably an edit in the hook to shorten it and keep it interesting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Modified the hooks as requested. I'll look over the article once I get home. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thebiguglyalien, should be fixed now. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Good to go! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Article has some WP:CLOP which should be addressed. Earwig. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@ClydeFranklin and Thebiguglyalien: Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Working on it... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Lightburst,  reworded and gave the person wbo added it a {{uw-paraphrase}}. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 00:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Worley (police officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. Good luck to us in advance. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (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

Comments

1—Well-written

1a—prose

I fixed parts needing attention. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

1b—MOS

• Lead: The lead can be reworked, can you expand it so that it summarises main points from the body? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Layout:
• Words to watch: @ClydeFranklin: Throughout the article, it's Richard J. Worley, what is the J. initial? Please add in full if possible or remove entirely. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Police career section appears to be close paraphrasing of www.baltimorepolice.org/about/police-commissioner. It needs to be rewritten. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  His, DOB is also not clear, is there no source confirming his exact date of birth? Instead of saying 1964 or 1965. Otherwise, let's use circa by implementing the {{circa}} template.

  Something like this would make sense: Richard Worley (c. 1965) is an American police officer ... then on the subsequent occurence, you could just use c. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2—Verifiable with no original research

2a—reference section

Everything fine. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2b—reliable sources

Sources are reliable and and well cited. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2c—OR

No original research detected. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2d—copyvio and plagiarism

No detection of plagiarism/copyvio. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

3—Broad in its coverage

3a—major aspects

This article is generally not broad in it's coverage. Because this is a BLP, even though some major aspects are covered. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

3b—focused

This is good to go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

4—NPOV

This is good to go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

5—Stable

No recent edit/move wars, so this is okay. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

6a and b—appropriate use of images with suitable captions

Image on infobox (licensed in cc-by-2.0) was extracted from another image which was licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0. Also, image is relevant because it is an image of Richard Worley. So this is okay. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

7—Overall

Pass/Fail:

While there's an issue with the coverage which is the only criteria not met here, I am happy to give this article a quick pass. Congratulations!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.