Talk:John Lear/GA1

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at this GA nominee. I have already familiarized myself with the article and will go through the GA criteria and evaluating this nomination against those criteria. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Review is finished. Although I believe the article is far from being ready for GA, I will place it on hold for seven days to allow the nominator to ask questions or seek clarification. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent feedback!! I'm on it.   I share your assessment of Lear being a "loose cannon", not a "heroic speaker of truths", that's def not the tone/POV I was shooting for.   Feoffer (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes to self / Todo List

 * Fix lede
 * Turn bullet list into prose
 * purge IMDB links, youtube ✅
 * Expand on candidacy
 * Fix newspapers citations, add title
 * Fix book citations, add page numbers
 * discuss disinheritance
 * explicitly connect Lear to Bill Cooper and Bob Lazar
 * direct quotes from Pale Horse Rider about significance?
 * tin foil hats he'd give out
 * Incorporate 'John Lear, the disinherited son of the Learjet magnate, had been posting wild conspiracies about secret government relations with aliens. They were the kind of thing no one took very seriously, until Cooper appeared from nowhere, corroborating them' ✅
 * find good source on Mufon 1989
 * Improve childhood
 * discuss disinheritance ✅
 * screen for passsive voice
 * depuff (influential American conspiracy theorist, record-breaking pilot)
 * fix excessive number of one-sentence paragraphs.
 * Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

We're still nowhere near GA, but I've made a lot of changes based on your feedback. If you want to look over the current work in progress and provide on-going feedback, in terms of "right direction/wrong direction", it'd be welcome. Feoffer (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At a glance, I'd say the addition of information is nice, but the addition of a whole bunch of short sections runs afoul of MOS:OVERSECTION, which is part of the GA criteria for layout. From that guideline: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.".   You have also added a lot of external links boxes to the article, and I wonder whether it would just be better to integrate the relevant content in the prose of the article instead of including external links.   This criteria is not a GA category, however, but in my experience, some GA reviewers who are not as strict as I am about limiting GA reviews to just the criteria listed at Good article criteria may raise that type of objection.   I'm going to go ahead and close the GA nomination at this point, feel free to renominate it at any time once you've had more time to give it some attention.   RecycledPixels (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback!  I'll keep at it!  Feoffer (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)