Talk:Nekima Levy Armstrong/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: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 01:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Two changes I might suggest: Some very long sentences, like the second sentence of the lead, and the sentence about dismissed charges in the activism section. Consider breaking up. I might reorganize the "teaching and activism" section. They're obviously related, but the current flow is somewhat awkward - bounces back and forth from a grabbag of worthy projects, to writing, to a detailed examination of her protests, to awards, back to detailed account of NAACP activism, to the mayoralty. Subheadings for the protests and mayoralty might particularly help. I don't think either of these are enough to block GA, but please consider them. (I'm happy to address the first one myself, if you'd like; the second is a bit tougher without a complete rewrite, which I may not have time for any time soon.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Generally compliant. One nitpick: if she "formerly" preached "every other month", does her role as preacher merit a mention in the lead? See discussion of roles in WP:BLPLEAD.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	I might move citation 1 (a primary source) to External Links, or after the first two citations. Not a violation per se, given that it is supported by the other secondary source citations, just somewhat awkwardly structured.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are some negative comments in this citation ("too divisive", etc.) I don't want to require WP:FALSEBALANCE, which may be what that the Star Tribune article is doing, but if other sources also echo the S-T's critiques, they might be worth including under an expanded section on the mayoral campaign.
	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not GA issues per se, but would be nice if second caption identified what march she was in, and had an alternative description for accessibility.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'd like to see the big issues here addressed before GA.

Thanks for the review, LuisVilla! I've responded to your concerns below:

• 1a: I know I tend to write long sentences; I've trimmed some down and hope that even if there are long ones left, they are coherent and not run-on. I've also reorganized and tried to chronologize Career (formerly Teaching and activism) section. Let me know if you think it reads better this way!

I think it does; that's subjective of course :)

• 1b: Removed "preacher" from the lead.

Thanks. I wrestled a bit with this one, since it does seem to be part of her self-identification, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in the sources relative to her many other roles.

• 2c: I've replaced the document, which I now see was not recommended for use as a source in a BLP, with another that cited her birthdate.

Great.

• 4: I added a sentence in. It feels a little crystal ball-ish but if you're okay with it, I am.

It isn't ideal? Like I said, I think the paper is trying to do the "both sides said" thing, but feels like we should at least nod towards some controversy if it exists. I expect this will need to be watched as the mayoral campaign develops.

• 6b: March identified. The second image already had alt text.

Weird, don't know why the alt wasn't showing up here.

Thanks again, and let me know if there are any other changes you'd like to see! All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks great - thanks for the hard work! —Luis (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2017 (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.