Talk:Oba Chandler/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I am going to be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The third external link (The case of Oba Chandler) deadlinks.

The lead needs to be cut down. For an article of this length, it should be two paragraphs, or three at the very most. And don't just combine paragraphs, information actually needs to be removed. The lead should be a concise summary of the article, containing no new information (such as the info on his possible execution at the end).

The information in the Media concerning the case section should be combined into paragraphs with transitions between sentences. As it is, it is basically a trivia list.

The information in the Features and background of the case section should be moved into the relevant sections of the article and integrated into the prose. As it is, it is just another list of trivia, and both lists and trivia sections are discouraged.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All references need to be formatted with publishers and access dates, and authors and other information should be included where available.

There are several places that need references. For example, the ends of the first two subsections in the Background section and several spots in the Media and features section.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There are several issues with the MOS compliance and referencing of this article, so for the moment I am placing the review on hold. I have not completed a full prose, completeness, reference reliability or NPOV check on the article - this I will do when I see that work is proceeding on the above issues. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of my prose/MOS concerns have been addressed, but not the reference issues. Are you still working on these? It has been almost a week since I've placed the article on hold, and although there has been some work completed on the article, there has been no response from the nominator here on the review page. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to fail this article due to a lack of response from the nominator. There has been some work done on the article, but not enough to make it GA status, and several of my original concerns have not been addressed. There are still referencing deficiencies in this article - and this is an article that needs to be extra-well sourced for two reasons: 1) It's a BLP and 2) It's about a sensational crime. The references also need additional information, such as publishers and access dates at the very minimum. There are also quite a few prose issues that need to be addressed. Chandler should always be addressed by his first name, not his last. And in places where it says things such as "Obas fathers death effected" this should either be written as "Oba's father's death effected" or rewritten in "The death of Oba's father effected". This is just one example of a place where the prose needs to be improved. Also the short "Facts leading up to the crime" section should be combined with one of the others. A two sentence section does neither the reader nor the article any good. When the referencing and prose issues have been addressed, please feel free to renominate this article at GAN. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]