Talk:Bernard Stone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

An interesting article on local politician Bernard Stone. Being in local politics myself, I hope I did not learn to many bad tricks from studying this article ;) Well, anyway, let's get to it:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The issues at hand are:

• There are several dead links that you should try and sort out. They can be seen here.

 Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, please take care of WP:REPEATLINK. There are some of those in there as well.

 Done Several overlinks removed, others modified. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Education: Someone already tagged it, the section lacks sources.

 Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Republican years: Third paragraph, you write against Democratic Illinois State Representative Carol Moseley Braun, who is black. I think against African-American Democratic Illinois State Representative Carol Moseley Braun might be more politically correct? I don't know if there is a convention on Wikipedia on this sort of word choice, but black seems weird to me.

 Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Berny's Wall": It seems that this section relies only on articles from the Chicago Tribune, which makes it a little one-sided. Maybe you can find at least 1-2 sources from another local papar, like the Sun-Times? Generally, this article relies very heavily on just these two sources, but I will not hold that against you, I believe it is hard enough to find sources as it is.

• Fixed two dead url refs to sources other than the Chicago Tribune in the section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Added three Chicago Sun-Times references to the section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Section trimmed for length. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Personal life: The markup was already put there by someone else, please find a source here.

 Done Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The nominator has the usual seven days to take care of the issues at hand. Good work so far! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you for the swift changes, this is now a Good Article. Congratulations! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it: You nominated this in "World History". I feel it would be better suited in "Politics and Government". Would you mind me placing it there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Not at all. Hugh (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I changed it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and your comments. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)