Talk:John W. Winters/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm done here; not going to bother putting this on hold since you're usually fairly quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All my concerns addressed
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All concerns addressed
 * 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:
 * No issues
 * 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:
 * References look solid
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spotchecks are clear
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig's tool flagged one sentence that was too close to the source; I've fixed it.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous information
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Comments addressed
 * 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:
 * Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues addressed, passing shortly.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

 * The article glosses over the move from NYC back to Raleigh; is any information available?
 * The source did not provide any details.
 * "was disqualified from service due to scars left by a childhood illness" This is very strange; certainly the first time I've heard of someone being disqualified for evidence of injury. Does the source have any details?
 * Unfortunately not.
 * "on the account of his black race" A bit awkward: I would suggest "because he was black", or even "due to racial discrimination"
 * Changed to "because he was black".
 * "Raleigh's black leaders" "leaders" is a bit peacockish. I'd suggest "wealthy or influential black men" or some such.
 * Changed to "black affluent men".
 * "excluded from white groups" "groups" is weird. "Clubs"?
 * Changed to clubs.
 * "he helped devise a strategy" Do we know what this was? If not, I'd suggest simplifying to "participated in efforts to increase..."
 * Source was not specific, changed to "participated in efforts to increase".
 * "ran as a Democrat for a Senate seat of the 14th district, representing portions of Wake, Lee and Harnett counties" It's odd to place these details after the sentence about his first run; do we know if that was for the same seat, and with the same affiliation? If so, I'd suggest reordering.
 * This is probably the case, but the source did not specify. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)