Talk:Emmett Till/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer:  – iridescent 14:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Only one prose comment; is 'almost every story about Mississippi returns to Till, or the region in which he died, in "some spiritual, homing way"' a direct quote? (I assume so.) If so, it probably ought to be in quote marks. (I know it's true—without the backlash Till's murder caused and the media reaction to it, segregation could have continued for decades longer—but some literal-minded person will probably turn up at some point to argue.)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is one of those rare cases where a lengthy "…in popular culture" sidetrack is entirely appropriate. Till's death was tragic but relatively non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) in the context of the period; what makes Till significant was the impact he had on US perceptions of Mississippi.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm taking it on faith that this does represent a fair view, and that there's not a significant "it didn't really happen that way" view. In context of Bryant and Milam's later confessions, this seems reasonable.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The rewritten article is still too new to sign off on "stability", but I don't see any particular area for concern. The arguments over the title of the article in my view don't affect the validity (or otherwise) of the article's content, which would remain unchanged under either proposed title.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Three non-free images, but two are irreplaceable historic images which significantly add to the understanding of the article topic. Taking it on faith that there is no usable free-use photograph of Till while alive.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   No hesitation. There are a couple of "I'd have done it differently" areas, but nothing that detracts from the article's quality and no issues in Wikipedia terms. – iridescent 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)