Talk:Roy Cohn/GA1

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

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

All right, I haven't been all that active on wikipedia in a while, and I'll be busy after break ends, but I thought that this might be a nice thing to do on the side. Roy Cohn is pretty popular in Alternate History timelines so I have some familiarity with the guy. Anyways I'll start doing an in-depth review on Boxing Day.

After a quick glance at the Wikipedia article, a couple of things stick out to me in particular.

"In 1971, businessman Donald Trump moved to Manhattan, where he became involved in large construction projects. In 1973 the Justice Department accused him of violating the Fair Housing Act in his operation of 39 buildings. The government alleged that Trump's corporation quoted different rental terms and conditions and made false "no vacancy" statements to African Americans for apartments it managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

Representing Trump, Cohn filed a countersuit against the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless. The countersuit was unsuccessful. Trump settled the charges out of court in 1975, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant." The corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and give the league priority for certain locations. In 1978 the Trump Organization was again in court for violating terms of the 1975 settlement; Cohn called the new charges "nothing more than a rehash of complaints by a couple of planted malcontents." Trump denied the charges."

Besides the parts in quotes, some of the phrasing seems based off of this. I'd reword this area.

The Counter-Espionage section doesn't have any sources to it. It also probably should be combined with the section for the Rosenberg trial.

References 9 and 37 are the same as #3.

References #4, 14, 18, 36, 41, 42, 51, and 53 are dead.

Jerry (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I'll start working on this now. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 06:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for reviewing this. I've fixed the duplicate references mentioned, as well as rescued the dead URLs you found. I slightly re-worded parts of the Trump-related section you mentioned, though I had trouble finding too many close matches. I've also combined the counterespionage section with his early life, and renamed that "Early life and career". Some other copyedits related to that, and sources found for those sections where needed. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 22:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, these issues are fine now, except the issue with the counter-espionage section. I still think it's too short to be its own stand-alone thing but this is really a minor quibble. There's also still two "Angels In America" sources which seem to have the same contents.

"Joseph Welch, the Army's attorney in the hearings, made an apparent reference to Cohn's homosexuality. After asking a witness if a photo entered as evidence "came from a pixie", he defined "pixie" (a camera model name at the time)[43] for McCarthy as "a close relative of a fairy." (Fairy is a derogatory term for a homosexual man.) The people at the hearing recognized the slur and found it amusing; Cohn later called the remark "malicious", "wicked", and "indecent"." Wording here is pretty confusing, took me a while to understand what this meant.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Also no problem here, the article is well sourced enough.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Fairly sums up the major aspects of Roy Cohn's life, and to some extent of his legacy. Most news sources focus a lot more on his relationship with Donald Trump and his legacy to fit how he's relevant to this day, but at least in my opinion, the article is adequate with what it currently has.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Roy Cohn is undoubtedly an controversial figure, especially seeing his relationship to Trump and rumors as towards his homosexuality. It does not seem all too biased however, and does link to sources which back up points.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Haven't found anything noteworthy here
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Nothing wrong here, both images are relevant and in the public domain.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I had more written down but it seems like you fixed it while I was writing this. Anyways, besides a bunch of really minor things, there's not a huge amount standing out about this article that needs to be fixed, at least in my opinion, besides what I listed. The article seems mostly ready for GA, even though not much prep work was put into this.

Jerry (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree about the "pixie" paragraph. I've slightly revised it for clarity. The counterespionage section was added to create the "Early life and career" section, as I agree it wasn't really worth its own section. I've also made a few minor style fixes. Thanks again for your comments and review. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 00:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, I've noticed two other things, give these two sources, they seem worthy of one.

"Cohn preferred not to hold hearings in open forums, which went well with McCarthy's preference for holding "executive sessions" and "off-the-record" sessions away from the Capitol in order to minimize public scrutiny and to question witnesses with relative impunity. Cohn was given free rein in pursuit of many investigations, with McCarthy joining in only for the more publicized sessions."

"Although the findings of the hearings blamed Cohn rather than McCarthy, they are widely considered an important element of McCarthy's disgrace. After the Army–McCarthy hearings, Cohn resigned from McCarthy's staff and went into private practice." These two need sources, per 2b. Jerry (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, congratulations I'm Passing this article. I see no major issues with the article which prevent it from reaching Good Article criteria.Jerry (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)