Talk:Walter Loving/GA1

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * For an article of this size I'd probably expect a longer lead, perhaps two paragraphs, to adequately summarise the content


 * Early Life


 * Born in rural Virginia, Loving's father – a former slave – was a farmer who lived with an extended family of fourteen relatives. At age 10...; you launch from talking about Loving's father to talking about Loving at age 10. Surely he was born in-between then? Is there nothing about his mother in the source(s)?
 * He relocated with the Flandrau family; just him, or the whole family?
 * Family legend claims; who makes this claim? I'd suggest rephrasing as According to  because claim is a word to avoid
 * Loving's biographer; who was his biographer? Just a point of interest & helps attribute the opinion
 * believed; by who? (see WP:WEASEL). Be assertive in what you are recording. You could rephrase this as "may have" and if it is a dubious claim attribute it to someone


 * Career


 * tapped; suggest rephrasing as it sounds informal in tone


 * General Comments
 * It's good to see lots of images! I personally don't like left-aligned images but I realise this is personal preference. However, in this case the image placement (left/right/left) creates an odd flow - with sections left-indented to two different levels.
 * None of the sources have page numbers, and some of the source material is several hundred pages long, ideally items should be referenced/cited to the relevant page


 * Article scope


 * To meet the Good Article criteria the article should cover the main aspects of the subject. This is not as detailed a requirement as at Featured level, however in this case having taken a brief overview of the sources I think this article is lacking a significant amount of detail. For example location and date of birth. One of the sources I reviewed had a detailed 20-page article about Loving that is not reflected, in the most, in this article.

Please feel free to reply in-line. I will add more detail as I re-read the article, and will follow up with a full source review later. --Errant (chat!) 12:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ErrantX - thanks for taking the time to do this review. You make some great points, however, I'm not going to move forward with it. Unfortunately I don't think your review is in a workable form just yet. For instance, you said "none of the sources have page numbers," when actually all of the books sourced have page numbers except one. You said it's lacking his date of birth when, in fact, his date of birth is specified in both the lede and the infobox. I do appreciate you being willing to review this but I think I'd prefer to wait a bit longer for a slightly more attentive review to ensure it goes smoothly. Thanks again; all the best - LavaBaron (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi LavaBron. You've asked for a critique, and I put in several hours to review the article for you. That was quite an investment of time, and I'd expect you to be willing (having requested the review) to now put some time into reviewing my suggestions. To treat your specific points; Cunningham, Yoder and Johnson (your main sources) have no page numbers at all. The lead and infobox should summarise the article; as such I'd expect to see the date and place of birth in the first section. The main problem is that the article is lacking a lot of detail that does exist from the sources. For example, details as to when he joined the Army and the regiments he was in, as well as commentary about his leaving etc. are not present. (as a side note; when I use the phrase "for example" I am simply making one example, and there will be more to look for). I've reviewed the prose that is there and listed my comments above. When the article is expanded then I'm happy to go through that again from a prose perspective. Writing a biography like this (whcih is quite an important one) is a major time commitment so I can understand if you're lacking the time to work through it, I'm happy to put the GA on hold whilst you take time to work through it. However, at this stage the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. --Errant (chat!) 11:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ErrantX - yes, like I said, all of the books cited (7) have page numbers except one which I do need to correct (the news articles don't as the news citation template doesn't allow for page numbers). However, you said "none of the sources have page numbers" which I naturally interpreted to mean you believed "none of the sources have page numbers." I also didn't interpret "there's no date of birth in the article" as feedback that I should "add a DOB into the first section" (which is very valid feedback and appears, after you've explained it, to be what you meant to say). Ultimately, if I keep having to ask for interpretations of what you mean because I don't understand what you're typing, we'll both end up wasting a lot of time and energy. I know you're probably busy so, as a courtesy, it is in both our interests if I end the GA review here to save time. Sorry it didn't work out. Hope all is well - LavaBaron (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I will mark the review as failed. Really the review has plenty for you to work on so I am unsure what the reason for your concern is. FYI; the news articles don't as the news citation template doesn't allow for page numbers; this is incorrect, both Cite News and Cite Web have page= options, I think you actually need to be using Cite Journal and/or Cite report anyway. Whatever you choose, though, the length of the source material means definitely using page numbers. I don't know how to be more clear; the Article is lacking significant material (some examples of which I have given) for it to meet the GA criteria. If you want to bring the article to GA level then you'll have to go through the sources, read the material, and bring that content in of your own volution. It's not down to the reviewer to write the article, although I am happy to give you tips if you need them. I am happy to fail this now if it's your preference, when you've addressed the above issues please feel free to re-submit for review. I really hope you do because Loving is an important article! -Errant (chat!) 18:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you can please fail it as soon as possible so I can resubmit it quickly, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Errant! LavaBaron (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)