Talk:John R. Brinkley/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is very good and easy to read. The article follows the manual of style guidelines.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most information is cited by the Brock 2008 reference, though there are a good number of other citations as well, and they are reliable. For the references with web links in the inline citation, they need to include more than just the link and title -- full citation information should be provided, as much as possible -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, as well as the date the URL was retrieved. This is important, such that, in the event the link becomes 404, the citation information can still be useful in verifying the information.
 * One other minor issue: IN the 'political career' section, it states that, "Brinkley reacted to losing both his medical and broadcast licenses by launching a bid to become the Governor of Kansas,..." So, if he lost his broadcasting license, how could he later use, "his radio station to help his campaign"? Doesn't really make sense?


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think that all of the major aspects of his life and career are covered, so it's reasonably complete.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article seems to be written in a pretty neutral tone, which is commendable, considering the controversial nature of Brinkley.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars or WP:3RR violations.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Only one image is present in the article, and it is tagged and captioned. Not sure if I'd agree that it's a copyrighted image -- the image may very well be out-of-copyright (copyright expired) -- but the non-free fair-use rationale is acceptable, so it's fine.
 * Additional comment: An image of one of the advertisements he used for goat gland transplantation might be useful to add to the article?


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think the article mostly meets the six GA criteria and can be promoted once the issues above are resolved. I'll leave this on hold at WP:GAN until 6/29/2010 so that they can be worked on. WTF? (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Response
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. I'll work on the issues you've raised as I have time over the next few days (anybody else who wants to, of course feel free). &mdash; e. ripley\talk 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not very familiar with fair use rationale so I have stayed away from trying to locate a decent picture. I found quite a few in the holdings of the Kansas State Historical Society (which I think is likely where the picture we're now using is from).  It includes quite a lot of other things that could be informative for the purposes of this article, including an advertising pamphlet on Brinkley's hospitals here.   I considered inserting a picture of him from their holdings, but when I looked at their usage language, I wasn't quite sure that it would work for our purposes.  Their FAQ first says that materials online have been evaluated to adhere to fair use and aren't believed to violate any copyrights, but then below it, it says that they don't guarantee that materials posted online are not copyrighted and require you to fill out some permission form "and pay applicable usage fees" for the purposes of using them on another website.  So I stayed away from it.  Here's the FAQ:   Maybe I'm misreading or reading more into it than necessary, but I'd appreciate someone else with a better grasp of image copyright and fair use doctrine take a look first. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed up all the web cites now. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On the question about his using radio to influence his gubernatorial campaign after he'd lost his radio license, I *believe* (but need to check) that he simply used XER, and counted on it being strong enough to reach into Kansas. If that's the case it should be made clearer. I will try to fix up any confusion here, once I figure it out myself. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the case. I've made a notation in the article to this effect. Unless I've missed something, I think that pretty much addresses everything above. Thanks again. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a photo of mother and son, and I can add more when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GA passed
Looks like the issues are resolved. The article can now be listed. Good work! WTF? (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)