Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|


|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  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:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    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:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  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:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:||}}


Regarding Lead[edit]

  • The first paragraph in the lead is one long sentence. Consider expanding or at least breaking it into two sentences.
    • I did this, and took a bit from the beginning of the second paragraph and added it to the second sentence in the first graph. I think this addresses both objections here.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This sentence, "The trio were tied together by officials who alleged they planned to shoot Obama with a high-powered rifle based on their reported white supremacist belief that an African American should not be elected President of the United States." is a run-on and is a bit awkward. Consider rewriting.

Regarding Investigation and arrests[edit]

  • You have some unnecessary wikilinks (cousin and major party) are examples. For major party it would make sense if it linked to the Democratic party article rather than "major party" article, that doesn't really add to this article. Please review the article and look critically at the wikilinks to make sure they contribute to this specific article.
    • Yeah...when I first started at Wikipedia, I used to wikilink practically EVERYTHING. I think I've matured a bit now. lol. Removed the unneeded ones that I can find. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Check the photo in this section, there is a clean-up tag and a warning that it may not meet Fair use criteria. Please rectify this or remove the photo. H1nkles (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I switched it out for a new one from Wikimedia Commons that looks OK.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You indicate that the woman present during the men's conversation about assassinating Obama was not identified, but then later you say that one of the women was Kay Neb. Was there more than one woman involved? It isn't clear from the prose. H1nkles (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I sort of left it vague on purpose because it's not clear from the sources. One news source identifies Kay Neb as a woman present in the room, but its not at all clear whether she is the unnamed woman identified in these other news sources. It can't really be said for certain. If it's too confusing in the article, maybe we could rectify it simply by removing Kay Neb's name? It's not really an essential detail anyway. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would remove Kay Neb's name altogether. It is confusing as it implies that there may have been two or more women in the room along with the conspirators. I would just take out her name and make is anonymous until a source can be found that nails it all down. H1nkles (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and done. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Johnson implicates Adolf[edit]

  • You make a grammatical mistake in a few spots throughout the article but I noticed it here. Before a quote you should have a comma. For example, "Johnson said the plan was for Adolf to 'shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a...rifle...sighted at 750 yards'" There should be a comma after "to". H1nkles (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Media coverage[edit]

  • Check the following sentence, "Friedman pointed out that U.S. Attorney Troy Eid put far greater focus on a "on this relatively little amount of meth and their use of it than on the other apparent highly incriminating pieces of evidence obtained". It's poorly formatted especially the transition into the quote. Also no comma before quote. H1nkles (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like I made a grammatical mistake there. I fixed it and added the comma. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References[edit]

  • References 3 and 11 are dead links and those will need to be fixed.
  • The rest are good and credible.

Overall Review[edit]

  • The article is very close. Here is what needs to be done to get it to pass GA:
  • Check that photo for clean up tag and FU issue.
  • update the links in the dead references.
  • Check that stub paragraph in the lead.
  • clean up those grammatical issues with the comma before quotes.
  • the overwikilinking is annoying but not a reason to fail an article.
  • I'll put it on hold for a week and give you some time to work on it. Good job. H1nkles (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Let me know if anything remains. Thanks for the review! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok article looks good, thanks for making the corrections. I'll pass it at this time. Congratulations. H1nkles (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)