Talk:Richard Worley (police officer)/GA1
GA Review edit
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I will review this. Good luck to us in advance. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments edit
1—Well-written edit
1a—prose edit
I fixed parts needing attention. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
1b—MOS edit
- Lead: The lead can be reworked, can you expand it so that it summarises main points from the body? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Layout:
- Words to watch: @ClydeFranklin: Throughout the article, it's Richard J. Worley, what is the J. initial? Please add in full if possible or remove entirely. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Police career section appears to be close paraphrasing of www.baltimorepolice.org/about/police-commissioner. It needs to be rewritten. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- His, DOB is also not clear, is there no source confirming his exact date of birth? Instead of saying 1964 or 1965. Otherwise, let's use circa by implementing the {{circa}} template.
- Something like this would make sense: Richard Worley (c. 1965) is an American police officer ... then on the subsequent occurence, you could just use c. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2—Verifiable with no original research edit
2a—reference section edit
Everything fine. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2b—reliable sources edit
Sources are reliable and and well cited. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2c—OR edit
No original research detected. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2d—copyvio and plagiarism edit
No detection of plagiarism/copyvio. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
3—Broad in its coverage edit
3a—major aspects edit
This article is generally not broad in it's coverage. Because this is a BLP, even though some major aspects are covered. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
3b—focused edit
This is good to go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
4—NPOV edit
This is good to go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
5—Stable edit
No recent edit/move wars, so this is okay. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
edit
Image on infobox (licensed in cc-by-2.0) was extracted from another image which was licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0. Also, image is relevant because it is an image of Richard Worley. So this is okay. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
7—Overall edit
- Pass/Fail:
- While there's an issue with the coverage which is the only criteria not met here, I am happy to give this article a quick pass. Congratulations!