Talk:Tishaura Jones/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Novem Linguae in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) 19:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: ✓ Pass
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: ✓ Pass
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: ✓ Pass
- 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: ✓ Pass
- 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: ✓ Pass
- C. It contains no original research: ✓ Pass
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: ✓ Pass
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: ✓ Pass
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: ✓ Pass
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): ✓ Pass
- Will ask @Novem Linguae: for second opinion, I am little bit concerned about the size and the amount of details of her career, also regarding her fathers fraud etc. pp.
- Overall, looks pretty good. I think the father being convicted is OK to mention, because a secondary source links it to a corruption scandal that Jones was involved in. I'd recommend the following changes to improve the article, if the GA author agrees: 1) Condense (or break into sub-sections) the "St. Louis Treasurer" section, which is a little long. 2) Reduce WP:PROSELINE in "St. Louis Treasurer" section, by removing some dates and focusing on summarizing important ideas. 3) Elaborate on this Craig Walker corruption allegation. In both spots where he is mentioned, it feels incomplete and I am left with questions. Was this a valid allegation? Did anybody do further investigation? What was the exact allegation? What exactly did Walker do that might be corruption? Thanks for submitting this to GA. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Done first point, broke apart section "St. Louis Treasurer" into subsections. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Done I have made some edits that I believe addresses the proseline in the "St. Louis Treasurer" section. However, given that this one is more subjective, more input would be appreciated if editors still find it to be insufficient. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Added more content on Craig Walker, and pinging Novem Linguae now that these concerns have been addressed. To answer (briefly) some of your questions: Yes, the report was valid in that the treasurer's office did in fact do business with his company, but Jones and others argued that there was no wrongdoing and that the incident was blown out of proportion. No, there was no further investigation (it's hard to prove the lack of something, but I've looked pretty exhaustively here). There wasn't really an exact allegation in the report, which is noted by this editorial: "Importantly, there is no claim made or evidence provided in the Post report that Tishaura O. Jones mishandled public money in doing business with IFS Securities, a black-owned firm." Thank you both for taking on this review, and if you have any further questions or concerns do not hesitate to let me know. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- AllegedlyHuman, looks good to me. Thanks for being so open to feedback. Good luck with your review. Ping CommanderWaterford. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Overall, looks pretty good. I think the father being convicted is OK to mention, because a secondary source links it to a corruption scandal that Jones was involved in. I'd recommend the following changes to improve the article, if the GA author agrees: 1) Condense (or break into sub-sections) the "St. Louis Treasurer" section, which is a little long. 2) Reduce WP:PROSELINE in "St. Louis Treasurer" section, by removing some dates and focusing on summarizing important ideas. 3) Elaborate on this Craig Walker corruption allegation. In both spots where he is mentioned, it feels incomplete and I am left with questions. Was this a valid allegation? Did anybody do further investigation? What was the exact allegation? What exactly did Walker do that might be corruption? Thanks for submitting this to GA. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Will ask @Novem Linguae: for second opinion, I am little bit concerned about the size and the amount of details of her career, also regarding her fathers fraud etc. pp.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: ✓ Pass
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: ✓ Pass
- Will ask @Novem Linguae: for second opinion, I am little bit concerned about the size and the amount of details of her career, also regarding her fathers fraud etc. pp.
- Please see above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Will ask @Novem Linguae: for second opinion, I am little bit concerned about the size and the amount of details of her career, also regarding her fathers fraud etc. pp.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: ✓ Pass
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: ✓ Pass
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: ✓ Pass
- 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: ✓ Pass
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✓ Pass
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✓ Pass
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: ✓ Pass
- Pass or Fail: ✓ Pass
