Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Wade Perrin in 1870

• ... that Wade Perrin (pictured) was assassinated by members of the Ku Klux Klan the day after being re-elected? Source: "Whites in Laurensville killed at least a dozen Republicans on 20 October...among the victims was Wade Perrin, whom the vote count showed to have been re-elected to a second term in the state house of representatives.
  • ALT1: ... that South Carolina legislator Wade Perrin (pictured) was assassinated by members of the Ku Klux Klan the day after being re-elected? Source: Same as ALT0.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kwaku Ohene-Frempong

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: After a good look through, I think ALT1 is better as most people are likely to not know who Perrin is, so having a description is helpful. Hook is interesting and everything looks good. Happy to pass. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.

1. Well written:

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable

   spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the manual of style guidelines for

   lead sections,

   layout,

   words to watch,

   fiction,

   and list incorporation

   The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

   all inline 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

   it contains no original research

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

   Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

   Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)