Talk:Carroll Pickett/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I am reviewing this article. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pending a response from the GA nominator. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * No images present in the article, so nothing really to review here. Would it be possible to obtain and upload a free-use image of the individual to Wikimedia Commons for use in this article? Cirt (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find a photo online that looked like it would be free to use. The person does do public speaking tours so in principle a free image could be created in the future.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah no worries. It's a long shot but might be worth a try posting a query to the talk page of WP:Texas. Cirt (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Passes here. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Passes here. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stability review
 * Article edit history - Aside from an IP, the article's creator is its only significant contributor. No issues here.
 * Talk page edit history - Same as the article edit history, article creator is the only significant contributor to the talk page as well. No issues here.

Will do rest of the review soon. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * Please remove the title of the individual "Reverend", from the first sentence in the lede, and all subsequent usage of "Rev.".
 * Per WP:LEAD - The lede should be a summary of everything later in the article. Instead, the lede appears to introduce new info, not present later in the article. This needs to be remedied.
 * Recognition - This subsection would be better if converted from a bulleted format to a paragraph format, with some commentary and secondary sources on these issues.
 * Publications - This subsection would also be better if converted to a paragraph format. The lede says the work "won several awards" - this could be discussed in a few sentences, with an additional few sentences on reception of the work.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * Cites look okay, but could use better formatting - why all the redlinks?
 * Cites could be better formatted using WP:CIT templates.
 * Cites are stuck in some places in the middle of sentences, ideally should be at the end of sentences and not awkwardly stuck on after a word.
 * Cites have URL links to Google archives, Google news/books, etc. These should be removed.
 * Cites 6, 8, 12, 14, 15 appear to either be not the best sources, or in some instances primary sources. An effort should be made if possible to replace these with better sources, and secondary sources.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:


 * Possible over-emphasis on death penalty issues.
 * In relation to above point, lacks historical info on the individual's career/life, itself - as separate from/in addition to the death penalty views/issues.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Seems lacking some viewpoints from a read of the article. Has there been any criticism of the individual's actions in secondary sources? Praise? Analysis of any kind? This should be added to the article.
 * 5. Article stability? See above. Passes here.
 * 6. Images?: See above. Passes here.

I just felt that there was a lot of stuff here that needs to be addressed, and as such the article is not GA at this time but with a bit of work addressing the above points, and a good deal of expansion from additional secondary sources - it could be renominated later.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)