Talk:Tawana Brawley rape allegations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to quick fail this, so I will review it in detail over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (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 issues have been addressed

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

   All issues resolved

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:

   Reference issues have been fixed.

   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:

   Source reliability looks okay

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks reveal no issues

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Excessive quotations trimmed

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Short, but no significant gaps

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   All issues with language have been addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Some disruption from IPs, but not enough to prevent this reaching GA status.

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:

   No issues with relevance and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues fixed: passing shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Image licenses seem okay, but the file description here really needs to be cleaned up.
  • Fixed
• The article, while generally well written, slips into journalese in a few places. Examples include "racial tensions climbed" and "the case quickly took on an explosive edge", but the whole thing could use a read-through.
  • Fixed
• If Brawley didn't name her assailants, on what basis were specific people accused?
  • Fixed this problem
• We've gone from public response being sympathetic to 85% of white people thinking she was lying; the transition is a bit abrupt, and it's unclear why it took place.
  • Rearranging
• "as one of the rapists, and called him a racist, among other accusations." This reads funny, because they are legally accusing him of rape, but you can't charge someone with racism in court; that is a description of character.
  • Reworded
• "the African-American press and leaders" this seems grammatically off to me. Also, we should be careful about positing a monolithic "African-American press", unless that's exactly what the source says.
  • Reworded
    • Apologies. I restored the prior wording because it better represents what the sources, which refer to the black press, say. Specifically, they're referring to the black-owned Amsterdam News and City Sun and several black-owned radio stations, including WLIB—not to black employees of The New York Times and the network affiliates. I agree that the phrasing is awkward. Would "the black press and African-American leaders" be better? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Malik Shabazz: Well, it wasn't the concept of a black press, but that of a monolithic black press, which bothered me; but if that's what the sources say, let's roll with it. Vanamonde (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• "she was used as a pawn" to what end? That's a bit confusing otherwise.
• The quotation definitely needs attribution in-text.
  • rewording & added new sources & info
    • Better, but the article still doesn't say who's responsible for that quote other than "critics", which is vague. You could say "...rather than being given protection by the state. An opinion piece in the New York Times..." etc (or however you wish to describe it).
  • Reworded
• Link or explain district attorney, attorney general, sodomized, and grand jury.
  • Fixed
• "To issue the report, the grand jury heard" this reads strangely to me. Shouldn't it be "Before issuing the report..."?
  • Fixed
• Is there any material about the apparent inconsistency between paragraphs one and two of the "possible motives" subsection? As in, if King played a part in faking the scene, Brawley could hardly have been using it to avoid punishment at King's hands.
  • No
• Please look into how Al Sharpton's title is used in other articles about him; at the moment, it reads like an honorific.
  • I removed his title; it is not useful here
• There's multiple uses of "claims" and "claimed" in the article. While that's appropriate for Brawley's own statements, under the circumstances, it should be avoided otherwise; "said", "stated", etc, are better, per WP:CLAIM.
  • Reworded
• "The case exposed mistrust in the black community about winning justice from legal institutions." It took me several tries to understand this; I wonder if it could be rephrased? Also, "exposed" doesn't seem the best choice of words here; that is a term you would use for something inappropriate.
  • Reworded
• The parenthetical "he sought 395 million" appears in a strange place; and it needn't be parenthetical.
  • Reworded
• "were given widespread media attention in part" is odd just after discussing "National media attention" in the same paragraph.
  • Reworded
• "many black leaders who showed no degree of skepticism or disbelief of the teenager and her story." This does not read neutrally, because it's implying (in Wikipedia's voice) that they should have been skeptical.
  • Reworded
    • @Vanamonde93: Are you satisfied with the current state of the article?
• One final point; the quotations in the references are helpful, but are somewhat excessive. Can you look at pruning them, and keeping extensive quotations only when we're looking at particularly sensitive stuff?
  • @Vanamonde93: Finished.