Talk:Leon Daniel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLeon Daniel was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2011Articles for deletionKept
October 5, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 2, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that journalist Leon Daniel was one of the few reporters to remain in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon?
Current status: Former good article nominee

Clean-up[edit]

I'm doing a major clean-up of this page. Just fixed up the lede, and added appropriate sections. Next, I'll be spreading out the bunch of refs under the Vietnam War. Sonething else I've been unable to find are actual articles he has written, so perhaps it might be good to actually find some of those so that we have some primary evidence of his press work. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 03:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Philadelphia[edit]

The Civil Rights section incorrectly listed Pennsylvania in the list of states he worked in. The Philadelphia where the civil rights workers were murdered was in Mississippi, not Pennsylvania. 65.121.148.98 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is confirmed if you actually read the article in cite #4. 65.121.148.98 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Leon Daniel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Geschichte (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    I have nothing special to note concerning the prose quality. Regarding to the lead, it is short and does not give a summary of the topic which could stand as a consise encyclopedia entry on its own.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    It is referenced, but some of the references lack much information, such as author etc. This is especially important for the books. Page numbers are preferred for books. Also, correct author information should be provided in all cases. For instance, the article from The Namibian is written by Namibia Press Agency/AP. Some references lack work/publisher -- where was the Dirck Halstead article published? etc.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    Does it contain the major aspects of the topic? The article is pretty decent, make no mistake, but for a good article I believe the article contains a bit too little information. The bit on the Korean War is short -- mention directly that he was awarded the Heart for Korea service, if that's the case, and it should be sorted out why this (which should be linked to directly) writes "Leon Daniels". There is little on his career in Vietnam between 1966 and the 1970s. What was his standpoint in the Cold War, while being a journalist he seems to have involved himself on one side? Nothing about his work in the Dominican Republic. Not everything is understandable to the reader, for instance what made the ray piece so notable? Also, the information in the infobox should generally be present in the article text, such as place of birth, death etc.
  4. Is it neutral?
    No apparent issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    No apparent issues.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    No, but this criterion is allowed to be overlooked if no apparent free image exists.
  7. Overall: On hold. Needs a longer lead and work on citation information. Should be fleshed out to give a presentation of the person. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for giving honest feedback. I'll be addressing these comments over the next week. I'm in university right now, and I have a busy few days ahead, but I should have some time to get on this. Again, thanks for the review. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No edits to the article in over a month, so I'm closing this. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leon Daniel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leon_Daniel&oldid=1206874772"