Talk:The Emperor of Ocean Park/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (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:
 * "the Judge had hired a private investigator ... at the suggestion of Jack Ziegler... In return, the Judge influenced some legislation to suit Ziegler." It's not clear how the suggestion and later influence are connected. Hiring a PI may not be the most common thing, but I don't get why the mere suggestion of it warrants repayment.
 * Clarified. Fish +Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the point of the similar deaths of the senator's son and girlfriend? It sounds ominous when first mentioned, but never seems relevant later.
 * Clarification added, it's from chapter 59 of the book but I couldn't find a proper reference for it. Fish +Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review my copyedits for accuracy and clarity
 * All good, thank you. Fish +Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "unmistakably a product by a legal academic" - this quote needs to be attributed inline.
 * Done. Fish +Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 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 concern
 * 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:
 * Is FictFact reliable? I think this and this might be suitable replacements for the cited information.
 * It probably is for something as basic as that, but replaced anyway. Fish +Karate 08:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern. Earwig's higher-end matches are quotes attributed inline.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * In good shape overall, but there are a few points under 1A that need to be addressed before I can promote. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded. <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)