Talk:Death of Mary Jane Barker/GA1

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

Reviewer: Legis (talk · contribs) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Overall it felt like a good, well researched piece, but just a little too short and a little light to pass as a fully fledged GA. Maybe flesh out with some of the wider ramifications and/or details of searches and suspicions.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Although it covers the core elements of the incident, it probably needs to actually widen its scope slightly.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * The single image is appropriate and tagged. But it could really use one or more additional images.  Map or photograph of locale and/or possibly image of other dramatis personae or relevant newspaper headline?
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It's close. I'd suggest just bulking out with a little more relevant material.
 * Thanks Legis. I did worry a bit about the length, but she hadn't a long life. Due to the talk page, will flesh out the curiosity of how they didn't search the closet. Also, I originally had a picture of the ranch house, but it was removed and I guess it was too morbid. A fascinating case to get your head around, whether a tragic accident or some game of hide-and-seek gone wrong.  Cake  (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know if it's any better. Cake  (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cake - Hi, I think the introduction has to be cleaned up a bit too. There are too many sources so if you remove them from the intro and work on summarizing the intro, per WP:LEAD, it can improve the article. Let me know if you have any questions. ComputerJA (  ☎  •  ✎  ) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Any better? Cake  (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better! Just read through the whole article. Such a sad story... is there more content in the sources so you can expand the article a bit more? You might want to check Google Books or keep looking for more stuff online. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It's close. I'd suggest just bulking out with a little more relevant material.
 * Thanks Legis. I did worry a bit about the length, but she hadn't a long life. Due to the talk page, will flesh out the curiosity of how they didn't search the closet. Also, I originally had a picture of the ranch house, but it was removed and I guess it was too morbid. A fascinating case to get your head around, whether a tragic accident or some game of hide-and-seek gone wrong.  Cake  (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know if it's any better. Cake  (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cake - Hi, I think the introduction has to be cleaned up a bit too. There are too many sources so if you remove them from the intro and work on summarizing the intro, per WP:LEAD, it can improve the article. Let me know if you have any questions. ComputerJA (  ☎  •  ✎  ) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Any better? Cake  (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better! Just read through the whole article. Such a sad story... is there more content in the sources so you can expand the article a bit more? You might want to check Google Books or keep looking for more stuff online. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better! Just read through the whole article. Such a sad story... is there more content in the sources so you can expand the article a bit more? You might want to check Google Books or keep looking for more stuff online. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you still reviewing this article? A pass/fail decision has to be made if your review is over. Thanks! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was very busy at work and drifted away from this. But during my absence I have increasingly realised that I don't have a good enough grip of the GA process to be leading a review (particularly when going through GA nominations from the other side).  I think overall I don't see the standard as consistent with other GAs, so I think probably the best course at this stage is to mark it as a "fail" and allow it to be renominated.  Sorry. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply., are you still working on this? Do you think you can expand the article size a bit more? I believe that was Legis' primary concern with the review. Although there isn't a size requirement for GA, a lot of the sections are short. I'm happy to take this review if you still plan to work on this. Let me know! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, still working on it. Does anything remain unclear? Cake  (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. I think the sources are strong and the article is well written. My only concern is the scope/size of the article. I hope you can find more information. I would try to look up FA or GA articles that are "Death of" or "Murder of" topics so you can get a better understanding of the structure. See Death of Jimi Hendrix, for example. Though I'm not expecting something of that scope, I guess you can base yourself on that layout. I wrote an article, Murder of Joey Fischer (in nomination for GA), and used the Murder of Selena as a reference to write it. Try to add more information on the search, investigation, autopsy, etc. if you can.
 * BTW, do you know how much time you would need to get this done? ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 13:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Expanded the 'search' section a bit. Not sure what to do with the rest. Cake  (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Final decision
WIAGA makes no reference to article size. The nearest criteria is broad coverage which means 3a. addressing the main topics and 3b. staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. The article is a bit short than most GA I've done, seen, or reviewed, but this shouldn't be a surprised since the subject was 4 years old, her death wasn't foul play (as initially expected, which would have turned this into a murder investigation, trial, etc.), and because it happened many years ago and seems to be a local-statewide story where newspapers had limited information. I made a few fixes here and there, and tried to expand the article as much as I could.

Before I pass this article, would you be able to address the tags I added? Two are a request for full citation. The sources like publishers, dates, author, etc. The other is a website that cites an offline newspaper. I think the website (not the source cited) is unreliable. The other is about the date when Freitta got her new dog. Let me know when you address these and I will take a look at this. The article is close to promotion! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 18:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much computerJA. Not sure what I will do with the press photos to find them again, or when she got the new dog, but I am looking. Also, just delete the link to the dot net website then? Cheers. Cake  (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems both were on ebay but taken off. Here gives only the date "1957". Cake  (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. Thanks for showing me this. I found a source for the new dog, so we're good there. I would say we cannot use the photos per WP:PRIMARY. I'll go ahead and remove them since they don't count as reliable sources. Thank you for the interesting article and great job here! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 03:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Article has passed. Please see the changes done in the article history as illustration of the changes done during this nomination. Thanks! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)