Jump to content

Talk:The Emperor of Ocean Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 22 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Emperor of Ocean Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    "the Judge had hired a private investigator ... at the suggestion of Jack Ziegler... In return, the Judge influenced some legislation to suit Ziegler." It's not clear how the suggestion and later influence are connected. Hiring a PI may not be the most common thing, but I don't get why the mere suggestion of it warrants repayment.
    Clarified. Fish+Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of the similar deaths of the senator's son and girlfriend? It sounds ominous when first mentioned, but never seems relevant later.
    Clarification added, it's from chapter 59 of the book but I couldn't find a proper reference for it. Fish+Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review my copyedits for accuracy and clarity
    All good, thank you. Fish+Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "unmistakably a product by a legal academic" - this quote needs to be attributed inline.
    Done. Fish+Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    no concern
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Is FictFact reliable? I think this and this might be suitable replacements for the cited information.
    It probably is for something as basic as that, but replaced anyway. Fish+Karate 08:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    no concern. Earwig's higher-end matches are quotes attributed inline.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    no concern
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concern
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    no concern
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    In good shape overall, but there are a few points under 1A that need to be addressed before I can promote. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Argento Surfer: Responded. Fish+Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

``conservative white political groups``

[edit]

this line comes directly from the review as noted. I have read the book. There is nothing in the book that indicates that the groups he worked with were specifically or intentionally ``white``, and I don`t remember that the book even says he was the only African American person at all the meetings.. It seems to be an addition or interpretation by the author of the review. I suggest the phrase be put in quotation marks to make this clear. --69.70.219.198 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Double Excelsior"

[edit]

The specific theme referenced is the $100 Theme, which is a Double Excelsior promotion-to-knight theme in a helpmate-in-five; it's considerably more specific than just "Double Excelsior". I'm currently writing a draft article for the $100 Theme. Should this article be changed to reflect the information about the specific theme? If so, how should it be changed, and when? Edderiofer (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edderiofer: - maybe when the draft is finished it would be a useful thing to add. I don't know anywhere near enough about chess to be able to expand that theme, but I would say that it's referred to as the Double Excelsior in the book so at best a reference in parentheses to the $100 Theme article (once it's ready) would probably suffice. Thank you though, it's an interesting topic! Fish+Karate 10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Emperor_of_Ocean_Park&oldid=1209650924"