Talk:Abergil crime family/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Drug trafficking section, "The Abergils", you need to explain who the Abergils are, this is for your reader who reads this article. Same section, "According to the LA Times", "according" seems to sound odd, maybe if the sentence was re-worded.
Done - rephrased --Flewis^(talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Also, the lead seems to be short and it may be a good idea to expand it a little more, per here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded and added in extra info into the prose. Does the lead specifically require any more work? --Flewis^(talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that'll do fine. Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, it would be best if "Israel" was linked once, per here. In the Drug trafficking section, the quote is not supposed to be italicized, per here. Same section, "LA Times" needs to be changed to "Los Angeles Times" and italicize it, since its a newspaper and per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.
Done --Flewis^(talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half-check. You forgot the quote. Also, dates need to be unlinked, per here and in the Murders and assassinations section, "Murder" is linked twice, link it once and if there are any more links that are linked twice, please, unlink them. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. . .done--Flewis^(talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References should come after the parentheses.
Done --Flewis^(talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Are there any free-use images available for the article?
Nope, the original pic's that were uploaded seem to have been deleted for incorrect licensing. The only way to get images for this article would be to upload them under a {non-free} license. --Flewis^(talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Flewis for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]