Talk:Ralph Larkin/GA1

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

I will be happy to review this article for GA candidacy. H1nkles (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1nkles (talk • contribs)

Lead
The lead is fine, you mention his book, "Beyond Revolution: A New Theory of Social Movements," twice in the lead, this isn't necessary, once is enough. Otherwise it appears to summarize the subject well. I'm not a photo expert, I note a general authorization via OTRS for the image, but there is also a personality rights warning. I just want to make sure we're on the up and up with the image. I think we're fine but again, not being completely versed on all the ins and outs of the WP image rules makes me unsure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1nkles (talk • contribs)
 * I copyedited the lede, removing the dup mention of the book's title. As for the image, yes it is fine, the template commons:Template:personality rights is commonly added on pictures of living people, and the image is used under an appropriate free-use license. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great sounds good, thanks for the response. H1nkles (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Teaching

 * This sentence, "Larkin was contacted by the press for comment on the Columbine High School massacre, and stated that there are multiple factors which stimulate violence in our society" should have quotation marks at, "that there are multiple factors which stimulate violence in our society", unless I'm missing something. It sounds like a direct quote, unless this is a paraphrase.
 * I'm not sure about the significance of the above statement. On it's own it seems a bit generic.  There are multiple factors that stimulate violence, there isn't anything really noteworthy in that statement as it currently stands.  Can it be expanded?  Did he outline some of the factors that stimulated violence in Columbine?  Or does he connect some of his other research into social movements with this thought?  I guess as a reader I'm left thinking it doesn't take an expert in sociology to know that.  Am I making sense?  H1nkles (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded on this, using info from the cited source. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall thoughts
The article is good and I will likely pass it. I'm going to hold it for now just to discuss the issues raised above, specifically related to the sourcing and photo. It's short but I don't see a comprehensive issue because the subject's notoriety is tied to his research and publications, specifically related to Columbine, and that is covered here. Perhaps a little on his personal life wouldn't hurt but I wouldn't hold up the GA due to that. I'll give it a week and see where we're at. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I've done a good amount of research on the subject, I am just not sure there is info out there in WP:RS/WP:V sources on his personal life. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I will pass the article as it currently stands. Well done.  H1nkles (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)