Talk:Robert Lee Burns/GA1

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

Reviewer: From Hill To Shore (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be starting the review now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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:
 * Prose: "The men fled the scene, but three were arrested days later." - should this be "the three were"? - I have gone ahead and made this edit.
 * Prose: The sentence about the Carlson memorial in 2013 is a little jarring as it comes before the sentence about Burns' death in 2001. Can this sentence be placed a the end so we have a chronological order of events?
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No issues identified.
 * 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:
 * A long list of references presented using citation templates.
 * 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:
 * There are currently 15 different sources for citations. 13 are from professional media sources, 1 is a primary source reference from a court case (used solely to support the existence of the case) and 1 is a self-published blog produced by a legal firm. The self-published source is supported by the Zamora source - I have edited the article to place Zamora in support of the self-published source.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No original research identified.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism. Copyvio detector gives a 36% match with one source but this is mainly quotations.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Main points appear to be covered.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Article remains focused on the topic.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Appears to offer a fair balance of views without taking sides.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No evidence of edit warring in article history. No periods of protection indicated in the page log.
 * 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:
 * One non-free image with a reasonable justification for fair use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * One image of the individual. However, editors may want to consider inserting images of items or locations mentioned in the article. For example, the article mentions a white Cadillac convertible; there should be a free image available of the type of vehicle somewhere (see Commons:Category:Cadillac automobiles). Another alternative might be File:FolsomStatePrison.jpg.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am marking the article as having passed the GA review. There were some minor issues identified, which I have gone ahead and corrected in the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

General comments
 * While not enough to stop promotion to GA, I think it would be worth saying something about his ambiguous birthdate. For example, "He was born sometime in 1930 or 1931 but his exact date of birth is unknown." From Hill To Shore (talk)