Talk:Martin O'Hagan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{inprogress}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Overall this is a pretty solid article. Comments as follows:

I will get on this after next Thursday, I've got 3 university essays due in the next week! PotentPotables (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need any of the cites in the lead per WP:LEADCITE (the detail about O'Hagan being the only journalist killed until Lyra McKee should be presented in the body directly rather than only referenced and explicitly stated in the lead.) Have there been significant editing disagreements over these facts?

Can't find anywhere specific in the body to put this yet, so will think over it. PotentPotables (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in 1984, O'Hagan devoted a full-page article in the Sunday Word to Duff and his situation—not sure why this is popped up here, out of timeline order. Did O'Hagan's article say anything specifically about Duff's innocence or something? If so, it should be stated so the relevance is apparent besides O'Hagan writing about his old acquaintances.
- The rest of this paragraph is a bit confusing just because we only have the May 1973 date at the beginning and an "also that year" bit in the middle. Did all these other events all occur in 73 as well? Might be helpful to tell us when he was sentenced at least.

Removed mention of Duff's article as cannot find further information on it (Sunday World isn't archived online anywhere). All the rest of the paragraph happened in 1973, but cannot find a specific month on the sentencing. PotentPotables (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1980s, he was a key source for the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary The Committee, which aired in 1991. Presumably you mean O'Hagan but it's a new paragraph and the last subject wasn't him, so best to be clear.

Added name. PotentPotables (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why a line about his abduction being the subject of a book is where it is.

Moved to end of paragraph. PotentPotables (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the National Union of Journalists section on its own? If the only information relevant to that section is two sentences, it feels like it can be folded into the 'later years' and/or journalism career section.

Moved section into Journalism career. PotentPotables (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Police stated that their chief suspects were members of the LVF and associates of Billy Wright,[14] who had been murdered four years prior at the Maze prison—you've already told us he was murdered before, so not sure why it's introduced again here.

Removed repeated info. PotentPotables (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and members of the Orange Volunteers website—who are they?

Added a wikilink. PotentPotables (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "reaction" subsection just feels like a laundry list of quotes from people instead of a better summary of the actual reactions. This could be tightened.

Will work on this. PotentPotables (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reason the list of notable attendees is put as a bulleted instead of inline list?

I was worried about there being too many commas and it appearing untidy, being in an inline list. PotentPotables (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The final subsections of the article start devolving into "on date X, Y happened" pseudo paragraphs. They should be condensed and varied so it doesn't read as poorly (I'm especially confused why the 'calls for investigation' is separate from 'allegations of corruption' and ombudsmen sections.

Will have a look at this and other sections where things need slimming down/condensing a bit. PotentPotables (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources generally seem reliable, and there's representation of nationalist/unionist sources.
- Did a spot-check of sources attributed to current refs 1, 4, 5, 14, 18, 28, 32, 43, and 54.
The only place I felt there might be POV concerns was the detailed listing and quotes from the Sunday World colleagues. I think it's something that can be collapsed down into something more succinct and summarized.
Running Earwig on the article, there are a few phrases that I think should be adjusted as they're a bit too similar in use and length to avoid close paraphrasing.
Only one image, decent-enough rationale that a free use image may not exist given the timeframe.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PotentPotables has there been any movement on this review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Hi, yes, sorry! I got the date wrong on a separate piece of work, so I'll be working on this review tomorrow! PotentPotables (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PotentPotables: Following up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of keeping things moving, I'm going to fail the article presently. Once the above have been fully addressed I think it can be renominated and shouldn't have many issues passing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]