Talk:Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 04:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   History

   • "Through the years, Fromme served as "the cornerstone" in keeping Manson cult members in communication with each other." -- If I understand right, she assumed a leadership role in keeping the cult together after Manson and the others were arrested, right Implies, but not directly stated and would be best if this was clearly spelled out. Necessary context given the article we're reading. Implication in this context is that she retained some of the extreme views developed there, potentially leading to this action.
   • "Three years later in 1975..." -- Any word on why this specific cause prompted her to attempt the assassination? Would be good to include if she had some kind views that escalated to cause her to pick this target at this point in time. Elaborated a bit further down, but good to explain why the was so concerned about that cause already.
   • Is there a serial number you can include in "weapon" subsection?

I added it

1. • "On the morning of September 5, 1975..." -- Any idea of the size of Ford's entourage? Or what entities were escorting him? I'm sure a mix of police and secret service plus aides, would be good to note.
   • Was it typical for him to like to walk in public like this? This far removed from the event and how things are now, seems like good background as well.
   • Anything on if this and the other attempt impacted Secret Service protocols with respect to guarding the president?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   • ISBN numbers needed for Ref 1 and Ref 37.

Fixed this

1. • Ref 11 and Ref 17, any available link for these?

No links. I checked.

1. • Consistency on Ref 43: Spell out the date and access date to keep them consistent with the rest of the references.

Fixed this

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass Seems to have this largely in hand.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass All images appear to be good as far as copyrights.

5. Other:

   • I think the typical style for an event like this would just be the year of the event, so "1975 Gerald Ford assassination attempt", but that's in no way a hard and fast rule. Any thoughts on why the city is included in this title?

@Ed!: There were two attempts on Ford's life in 1975; the other was by Sara Jane Moore.

1. • Dab link shows no problems.
   • Seeing a few duplicate links. Any chance you might be able to remove some of these?

Which links?

White House (bottom caption), Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum & Grand Rapids, Michigan all have a few links, the others are fine as far as I can tell. —Ed!^(talk) 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ed!:I found a duplicate museum source; the White House sources were different.

1. • I'm spotting four dead links on the external link tool, which need to be cleaned up.

Which links?

See: here

@Ed!:Two of the links are of newspapers that have been put online. Can I get rid of the link part and just cite the newspaper articles?

Yes, that should be fine, as long as you indicate the exact date of publication and any OCLC number or volume number, if possible. —Ed!^(talk) 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ed!: All of the duplicate links have been dealt with

1. • Copyvio detector pings one hit, but I strongly suspect it to be a mirror.

On Hold pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 04:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The issues raised here have been addressed to my satisfaction, good work! —Ed!^(talk) 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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.