Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be conducted the GA review for this article and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The sentence in the lead beginning "Three residents of the home where Wone was found..." seems a little awkward. The middle clause of the sentence "where Wone was believed to be..." seems out of place. Can this be reworded at all?
 * Reworded. Seem better now? Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref 33 (Chibbaro Jr., Lou) deadlinks.
 * Unessential, removed. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * References should not be left as bare links (i.e. #21) and should have publishers, not just works (i.e., Ref 23 should include Fox Television Stations, Inc., not just MyFoxDC.com)
 * Done. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a nice article. There are a couple of reference issues and one comment on prose, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No questions. Please have a look and see if I've addressed your concerns appropriately.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a nice article. There are a couple of reference issues and one comment on prose, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No questions. Please have a look and see if I've addressed your concerns appropriately.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)