Talk:Clarence Lightner/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience; I've finished, just a couple more for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All issues addressed.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * One concern with dead source addressed
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spotchecks clear
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Spotchecks clear, Earwig's tool clear, though it flags titles he held
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All feedback taken care of, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All feedback taken care of, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All feedback taken care of, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * Can you find links for "black" and "white" at first use in the body that would be appropriate for the US context?
 * I've simply inked to black people and white people if that suffices.
 * That's fine; African Americans and White Americans would be another option.
 * Link "football" and "quarterback"
 * Done.
 * Do we know where he served in WWII?
 * Sources do not specify.
 * "He later served as president" "He" is ambiguous
 * Changed to Lightner.
 * Find a link for "desegregate"
 * Linked to School integration in the United States.
 * "During his tenure" tenure on what?
 * Err to which instance are you referring? I have now clarified all anyhow.
 * "Mayor pro tempore" shouldn't "pro tempore" be italicized?
 * It is a Latin phrase, but its also an official title, like President pro tempore of the United States Senate, so italicization seems unnecessary.
 * Link "South" (in the American context)
 * "Southern" is already linked to Southern United States.
 * Missed that.
 * Link "mass transit system"
 * Done.
 * The first paragraph of "later activities" is verging on proseline. I'm not going to hold up the GA review over this, but I would suggest varying the sentence structure a little there.
 * Minor revision made.
 * Acronyms, while useful, can be confusing, and I recommend avoiding them where possibly. NCCU and CIAA are both used just once; you could substitute the full form without any length issues.
 * Done.
 * Can you find an archive url for the dead link?
 * No, it seems permanently lost. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * strange. Given that it's a quote from a living person, I'm not too happy signing off on a permanently unverifiable link. Can you look for an alternative? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found another source to corroborate the existence of the foundation, and have thus added that, but nothing for the quote, so I've removed it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)