Talk:Ed Bradley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: M4V3R1CK32 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am planning to review this article. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 27, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Partially. Prosaically, this is generally well-written, with only the occasional missing comma and syntax error. However, the lead section is much too long and meanders too much to meet the requirements of the guidelines for lead sections. Consider this note from that guideline: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Additionally, consider the special criteria for leads of biographies. Of final note, Personal life sections are generally the last section in biographical articles, though in this case that section would be followed by the Awards section.

2. Verifiable?: Generally good, and the inline citations are good, though the some of the sources are questionable: e.g. Allaboutjazz.com; wyntonmarsalis.com; Philadelphia Daily News. be sure to review sources against the reliable sources guidelines.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, though to the point of excess. Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of every available fact, and though some things may be verifiable (such as where Bradley attended elementary school), that does not make those things encyclopedic content. Consider the most notable things about Bradley's career and focus on those; consider condensing the less notable details and reducing the scope of the Personal life, Early life and education and Illness and death sections significantly.

4. Neutral point of view?: Though each topic is talked about in a generally neutral tone, the depth of coverage given to topics of less relevance to Bradley, such as his elementary background and the manner of his funeral, make the article read like an extended obituary. Consider the principles of due weight and balance in the writing of this, and consider these as content is reassessed for its encyclopedic value as well.

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: All photos are properly licensed, but it would be nice to include a few more images given the length of the article.

Overall, this is a solid article, and with a bit of tweaking to focus it a bit more and make it meet guidelines for things like leads, it should reach GA status fairly easily. Happy to review again after some revisions have been made.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Status query

M4V3R1CK32, Princessa Unicorn, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, Princessa Unicorn last edited the article—and Wikipedia, for that matter—on April 28. I don't see any comment from M4V3R1CK32 after those edits were made, though the article was placed on hold around that time, and other comments confirm that the review wasn't actually failed. Can this be started up again, and perhaps even be concluded by the end of June, or perhaps early July if that isn't feasible? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I made a multiple significant edits to the article since the initial review and left suggestions for improvement that went unacknowledged. Because of the amount of edits I made, I don't think I can be considered an objective arbiter for GA status anymore. I've been waiting to see if my suggested edits would be implemented or tweaked by Princessa but no dice so far. I have now implemented those suggested changes myself but again, I don't think I can make an objective evaluation anymore. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

M4V3R1CK32, why don't I call for a second opinion, requesting that it be a full review of the article; with luck we'll be able to attract someone from the current GAN backlog drive to take over. I do agree that given the extent of your edits to the article, someone else needs to make the final decision. Thanks for your work on the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to! I do think it is much closer now but I'm not sure it will clear the hurdle for GA. Happy to take a look at any suggested revisions a reviewier may have though! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

A new reviewer has been requested via second opinion to do a full review now that the previous reviewer has effective taken over for the nominator in making needed changes to the article. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New reviewer

I will take over this review. I'll post comments shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources are reliable; Earwig finds no issues.

• File:Fred Korematsu during interview with 60 Minutes.jpg has a dead link for source verification, and the license was never verified. Can you find any other link to verify the donation by Korematsu's family?
• FN 65 is "Blair, p. 107"; this is not enough for a reader to verify it. I think the reference is to Gwenda Blair's book in the external links, but at a minimum the title and full author name should be in the citation.
• The lead is too short for an article of this length.
• "Bradley recalled feeling awkwardness on the drive to Detroit; long periods of silence were broken by listening to the radio together." Driving with his father, I assume? If so I'd make it "on the drive to Detroit with his father".
• Are any dates, even approximate ones, available for his teaching career?
• Can we get a couple of words of description of the practical joke Ali played on Bradley?
• "In the year before his death, Bradley continued prodigious output for 60 Minutes, completing over 20 news pieces for the program": "prodigious" is opinion and shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. Can we make this something more neutral? If the source supports it, can we say something like "he continued his usual workload"?
• The Duke lacrosse case is mentioned in the "60 Minutes" section, which is reasonable, but it's repeated and expanded in the "Illness and death" section. I can see why you put the details where you do but it's repetitive. I think at a minimum I would remove the mention of the awards from the illness section, since that simply repeats the information from two paragraphs earlier.
• "after a decline from the leukemia": suggest cutting this; it's too vague to be useful.
• In the personal life section, everything after the sentences about Savitch repeat information from the previous sections; I would cut them.

Spotchecks:

• FN 42 cites "Bradley had been a season ticket holder to the New York Knicks, and on November 13, 2006, the team honored him with a moment of silence." No mention of this in the source.
• FN 43 cites "On 60 Minutes after Bradley's death, his longtime friend Wynton Marsalis closed the show with a solo trumpet performance, and selected Bradley's favorite musical pieces." Verified.
• FN 23 cites "Producer Don Hewitt hired Bradley for the role because Bradley was "a great reporter and a great gentleman"." Verified.
• FN 26 cites "Bradley became known for his fashion sense on 60 Minutes." This is not a verification failure, but I don't think we can say he was "known for" his fashion sense when this is a single journalist commenting on it. In fact Fraser says if he were alive today he would be an influencer, implying he was not an influencer then, i.e. that it was not widely commented on. And given that Fraser himself is not particularly notable I don't think we should mention his fashion sense at all unless you have other supporting citations.
• FN 9 cites "Compared to his time working as a foreign correspondent during wartime, Bradley found the role of White House reporter to be limiting in scope." Verified.
• FN 52 cites 'After Bradley's death in 2006, columnist Clarence Page wrote about Bradley's inspiration to Black Americans: "Mr. Bradley challenged the system. He worked hard and prepared himself. He opened himself to the world and dared the world to turn him away. He wanted to be a lot, and he succeeded. Thanks to him, the rest of us know that we can too."' Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Mike Christie, I pinged previous reviewer M4V3R1CK32 on their talk page that you had taken up the review—they had done too much work on the article to continue reviewing. Unfortunately, after so long, it looks like they won't be able to start work before mid-October at the earliest and suggest that the review should probably be closed now—please see the full comment at (User talk:M4V3R1CK32#Talk:Ed Bradley/GA1 before you decide how to proceed from here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset; I just replied there and am going to fail it per those comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)