Jump to content

Talk:Byron Brown/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

There's a lot to like here; the foundation of a good article is definitely present. The writing still needs quite a bit of work, and there are some problems with neutrality, however.

I've started reviewing your changes and comments. As I go through, I'll bold anything that I think requires further attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All concerns have now been addressed, and the article is a GA. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

[edit]

This could use quite a bit of work:

        • Actually, no, this sentence is highly incorrect! The New York Times article is just saying he was the sixth African American Democratic possibility to become mayor, but nothing about *any* of the prior five winning the Democratic primary. Indeed, it is counterfactual because since the mid-1960's all the mayors have been Democratic, and all of them presumably have won their party's nomination in order to run in the general election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.52.172 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

[edit]

Only minor issues here; I have the impression that the material is all sourced, but that an occasional lack of inline citations sometimes makes it hard to tell which source supports a given assertion. Examples:

Besides those cases, there are a few cases where the information in the article doesn't appear to match the sources:

This now passes the factually accurate criterion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

[edit]

Mostly excellent. Some minor quibbles:

I believe this article now meets the good article criterion on comprehensiveness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

There are some issues here:

All neutrality issues addressed - it now passes this criterion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

[edit]

One minor edit in the last eighteen days, no evidence of edit-warring at any time. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

[edit]

Good image choices, all of them appropriately-licensed. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]