Talk:Clint Grant/GA1

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this shortly. BenLinus 1214 talk 01:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Major Comments
 * There's some sourcing things, especially because the first paragraph of the "Early life" section is unsourced.
 * Numerous invisible comments within the article; see further explanations below.


 * You have a lot of non-free images in this article, and I honestly think you don't need all three. The tiger cub is the least relevant, and you might convince me to keep the other two, but if I had to choose one, it would be the post-Kennedy assassination one.
 * Tiger removed. The other two are highly historical in nature. Edit: tiger restored and funeral removed upon further review of the FU criteria. We can make a strong case for the tiger with its accompanying text. The historical image with Ike Altgens and the Newmans is correctly transformative in nature; the funeral image was not.

Specific comments
 * The two lead paragraphs are not equal enough—find another place to break it.
 * Do you have a suggestion? (Edit: meantime, I've re-read WP:LEAD—more specifically, WP:LEADLENGTH—and WP:WBA, and I can find nothing about balanced paragraphs with respect to length. Do you have a link to something I've missed? This is the first time I've seen such a thing suggested.) (Edit: I've looked at similar GAs and did some additional work.)


 * In the lead, the death sentences should be combined: "Grant died in Dallas at age 93 of heart failure.
 * A single-sentence paragraph would not pass a theoretical FA. Again, do you see a logical place for a different graf break? (see edits above)


 * First "early life" paragraph is entirely unsourced.
 * See invisible comments; there are several within the article that explain spots that might appear unsourced otherwise. This is the recommended style per WP:LINK.


 * "they had" instead of "they'd"
 * Fixed.


 * "Grant once said he had his own tricks…" this paragraph is a bit confusing…there's a lot of jargon with no links and it's a bit informal.
 * Fixed.


 * "The candidates in Texas, 1960": do you need all this background? Also, clean up the tone. Does this need its own subsection?
 * Yes; historically pertinent per the DMN, but appropriately brief per WP:UNDUE. (see edit below)


 * Put a ref after "when we heard one shot—pause—two shots in rapid succession."
 * Added invisible comment referencing the next invisible comment. (Edit: I've now added a couple of these.)


 * "Several photographers are also seen in the frame…" source?
 * Fixed.


 * "Reporters Remember 11-22-1963" shouldn't get its own section—maybe a subsection.
 * Sorry, I disagree on this one, and strongly. This was a 30th anniversary panel in which Grant was one of the journalists reminiscing on that day in Dallas. Edit: I've rearranged the sections and subs.


 * For the awards part, ref name it a few times throughout the paragraph to make it seem more wide-reaching.
 * Invisible comment added. Otherwise, I'm missing your point—are you suggesting WP:OVERCITE?

Be sure to clear this stuff up, especially the major comments. BenLinus 1214 talk 02:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * see above. I look forward to your further comments. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  03:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is looking a lot better to me. On the invisible comments, I don't see why you shouldn't just ref name all the refs and place them in appropriate locations, for several reasons—one, I don't see anything about invisible comments at WP:LINK, second, invisible comments do not appear to readers of the article and thus do not provide the reader with a source to verify or find more information. If you can find a guideline that proves me wrong, please do so. Other than that, I'm comfortable passing. BenLinus  1214 talk 03:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, shit—this was something someone else pointed out to me during a previous GAN, and now I can't find it. Okay, gimme a few minutes. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage   03:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That oughta do it. Thanks so much for your help and input! — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  04:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! That's better. Pass. BenLinus  1214 talk 01:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 01:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)