Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert Seedman/archive1

Albert Seedman
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been pretty stable and complete since I created it six years ago, and I think I can take it at least to GA.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Liz

Hey

I've done about a dozen of GA reviews, so I'll review this as if I were doing a GA review. Here's my comments/suggestions.


 * Lead section: "At the end of his career he was.." - perhaps be more specific, eg. During the last 20 years of his career, he was..
 * "The neighborhood was one of the toughest in the borough while Seedman was growing up there" - you could probably simplify this sentence by writing: Seedman grew up in one of the toughest neighborhoods of the borough
 * "paying better" - perhaps 'paying higher salaries'?
 * "At the time, there were few Jews.." - perhaps be more specific, eg. During the late 1940s, there.."
 * "He also earned graduate degrees.." - is there a source for this?
 * "public eye for the first time, although rather harshly." - was it really rather harshly? Is that the right term to use?
 * "had gotten" - perhaps 'had received'? Sounds more formal.
 * "public eye, this time favorably.." - is that your opinion?
 * "story in the Times" - 'The New York Times'
 * I decided to keep this one as is because the Times is linked and named in full in the preceding graf, close enough that I think readers will get it, or be able to if they flick their eyes up quickly. If the paper hadn't been mentioned for several grafs, yeah, I might probably have spelled it all out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "After the death sentence he had originally received was commuted when" - I feel like this sentence is a bit jumbled, perhaps: 'He received a death sentence, which was then commuted when..'?
 * "He was the first, and so far only.." - perhaps add the year, eg. 'He was the first, and as of 2019, the only..'?
 * "even if he could not say much for it." - perhaps 'even if he could not disclose many details' sounds a bit more formal.
 * "What happened next is still in dispute." - sounds a bit informal by starting with "What", perhaps 'The following events are still in dispute'?
 * "committed some outrage" - perhaps 'committed malpractice'?
 * "figure out what had happened." - perhaps 'understand what had happened'?
 * "Seedman never got the chance." - this also sounds a bit informal. Sounds like I'm reading a novel.
 * "Many NYPD officers believed.." - I believe that's in the source right?
 * "adapting to 21st-century technology" - I would write 'digital age' or 'internet'
 * 'Death' sub-heading - not really needed just for two short sentences.
 * Reference 21 doesn't work - it goes to a dead Facebook page.
 * I get it just fine ... maybe it isn't coming through where you are? Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * External link to Facebook doesn't work?
 * So I decided to remove it ... there's really no purpose in having it now that Seedman's been dead a few years. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall, it's a nice article. Interesting read! There's no major issues and appears to be mostly well-written. Some of the language could be tweaked to be made more encyclopedic. A couple of paragraphs could be merged too. You've got a sufficient number of inline citations & reliable references - I thought there will be more - but I think it's okay. No copyright violations were detected, although some quotes were flagged up, these have been sourced. Article does stay on topic. Appears to be stable and neutral. Illustrated with several images with appropriate copyright tags. I hope this feedback is useful, thanks Just Lizzy(talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks (Gee, and to think that I was beating myself up for not having closed it since the month was up ...). Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have gone through the article and made most of your suggested changes, or at least changed the text in some way; where I didn't I explained why I did. If you still think it sounds better as you suggested, feel free to respond further. Happy New Year! Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't responded, I take that as expressing no dissatisfaction and I am closing this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)