Talk:Joseph Mitchell Parsons/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Section-by-section review

I will go through every section to make specific comments on anything that needs to be changed/fixed/omitted, etc.

Lead

• Everything looks good here. Maybe a little more context on the Rainbow Warrior mention because it seems a little random. I see you have more stuff in the article later on explaining it, but its mention here seems a bit out of place.
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Have a specific in-line cite for 'his father beat him'
  •  Done. This is a challenging situation as the reference has since disappeared behind a paywall, but I did find the link in which subscription is required. This Google news search returns a short abstract which verifies the fact. KimChee (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's fine then. Lord Roem (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• If possible, a cite for the 'C average' fact
  •  Done. Similar situation, but here is the abstract from Google news search for that citation. KimChee (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Also alright. Lord Roem (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Imprisonment in Nevada

• Good.

Death of Richard Ernst

• I don't think the mention of the stuff he bought at the store is relevant.
  •  Done. Generalized. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Trial and sentencing

• Again, good. I like how the article is focused so far.

Appeals

• It appears you have a quote from Parsons at the bottom of this section. Is this supposed to be in a quote box?
  •  Done. However, I noticed the editors at Natalee Holloway, an FA-class article, prefer the plainer {{quote}} template. As this is a stylistic call rather than about the content, I am fine either way. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes. I guess it just looks cleaner to me. If you like it the other way, you can change that, I won't hold it against you. :) Lord Roem (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Execution

• Quote should be in a quotebox
  • Upon revisiting this quote, I reformatted it into the prose as you had mentioned the need for focus on the "Rainbow Warrior" comment. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Saw what you did there, good. Lord Roem (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Public reaction

• Change the first sentence here to something like: "Although Parsons requested that no one protest his death, the ACLU of Utah...."
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing thoughts

• This article is already very good, well-sourced, and is amazingly neutral in all respects. The facts are laid out nicely and in a organized manner. This is certainly a viable candidate for GA-status if the small fixes listed above are done. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time to review this. Part of the credit for helping to balance the POV of the article goes to Belovedfreak who worked with me during the peer review. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks like its already to go. I appreciate your speed in carrying out the changes. I will look through the article one last time before I fill out the checklist. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • One more change - delete the comment on what movies were suggested to him before the execution. A great list but probably not relevant. :P Lord Roem (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) I changed it myself. Lord Roem (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Very good article, well sourced and nicely researched.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I especially like your captions which are well-done

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Moving to promote.

-- Lord Roem (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)