Talk:Douglas P. Woodlock/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 02:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this on soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

comments
Nicely done, that's most of my comments, probably some more to come
 * Senior status duplinked in the lede
 * United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts duplinked in the body
 * "member of Skull and Bones" maybe say what 'Skull and Bones' is, I don't think that's common knowledge
 * "Chicago Sun-Times from 1969 to 1973, Chicago Sun-Times, first in Chicago" huh? perhaps you mention the Sun-Times one time too many? It's certainly duplinked
 * "served on the Georgetown Law Journal" maybe -> "worked for The Georgetown Law Journal"?
 * "He was in private practice in Boston, Massachusetts from 1976 to 1979, and again from 1983 to 1986, at the law firm of Goodwin, Procter & Hoar; in the interim, he was an Assistant United States Attorney of the District of Massachusetts" I think you could phrase this more chronologically, I don't see the need for 'in the interim'. Try something like "He was in private practice in Boston, Massachusetts, at Goodwin, Procter & Hoar from 1976 to 1979 and then served as an Assistant[...] before returning to Goodwin, Procter & Hoar from 1983 to 1986." Now this may need to be broken up into multiple sentences or phrased differently, but the benefit is twofold: 1) erased ambiguity over whether he was at Goodwin, Procter & Hoar from only 1983 to 6 or both spans, and 2) the sentence no longer leads the reader on, leaving them asking what he did in between until later, instead listing it out right away
 * Surely you can put images in somewhere?
 * You might consider combining some of the "notable cases" into larger paragraphs- right now it seems really blocky
 * could you add identifiers to his 'works'? that way a reader can track them down quickly
 * Is the Biographical Dictionary of Federal Judges actually used? If not, I'd suggest removing or placing in a further reading section
 * I don't see his birth date actually cited
 * "lawyer in private practice and in government positions" was he a lawyer in government positions, or merely in government positions? Clarify.


 * Thanks! I made some edits in response to these points - very helpful. Hard to find a free photo to use of Woodlock, however. I could put in one of the Boston courthouse that he is closely associated with. Neutralitytalk 02:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, that would work-- I just think it would be useful to have some sort of illustration Eddie891 Talk Work 11:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Image added. Neutralitytalk 18:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sourcing comments follow:
 * all sources are reliable
 * cites should be in numerical order, but that won't play into pass/fail of this article at a GA level
 * a spotcheck shows no obvious omissions or wrong citations
 * #29 should mention the author as 'Daniel Uria'
 * no close paraphrasing/copyvio
 * Please note these minor quibbles, but they are not sufficient to hold up promotion, and I will happily pass this as a GA. Nice work, and congrats! Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - I made the ref tweaks and it looks good now. Thanks for the review. Neutralitytalk 14:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)