Talk:James Sloan Kuykendall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this soon. BenLinus1214^talk 02:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "Kuykendall also served three terms…" repetition of the verb to serve

• Done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "before establishing" rather than "then established"

• Done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The dates in the middle of the third paragraph are a bit confusing—the West Virginia House of Delegates dates make it appear as though the terms last for twelve years, while "three terms before 1907" is very vague and I'm not sure what dates it denotes. The "by 1922" phrase makes it sound as though it was an advance to go from mayor to city attorney.

• I've clarified the dates and term lengths where necessary, with the available information from the sources. Please let me know if you see any other areas that need improved. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's also a lot of repetition of the verb to serve (serve, served, serving) in this section as well as in the political career section. I would go through and change a good number of those instances.

• I've reduced the usage of "serve, served, and serving" to seven mentions throughout the article. Let me know if you see any other places that could use some rephrasing. -- West Virginian (talk)

• "where he engaged in agricultural pursuits." More specific?

• The source was intentionally vague about Kuykendall's specific activities on his family farm. I can strike this entire statement if necessary. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of "his course at the University of North Carolina", I would just say "this course"—it's pretty clear to me what you're referring to and it's less clunky.

• I've incorporated your suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• In the same sentence, the word "afterward" is unnecessary.

• I've removed this per your suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble with the phrase "commenced the practice of law"—maybe "commenced practicing law"?

• I've incorporated your suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to check repetition of "served" / "serving" in the "political career" section.

• I've whittled the instances of words with the root "serve" down to seven. Please let me know if I should continue whittling! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• As in the lead, clarify "before 1907" and "by 1922"

• I've removed 1907 and changed by to in, as that is more in keeping with the source. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• If the entire third paragraph is cited to those two footnotes, then I would pepper them throughout the paragraph.

• The entire contents of the paragraph are sourced from those two footnotes, so I've made sure to pepper them throughout the paragraph so that the reader knows this. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Marriage and issue" sounds a bit formal—perhaps "marriage and children" would be better (or possibly "marriage and descendants" if you really want to)

• I actually removed the "Marriage and issue" subsection all together and just left the section as "Personal life." Let me know if this works! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are all four citations necessary to describe his wife? It's okay if they are, but I don't have the book sources, so I don't know.

• I removed the Callahan source, as it is used quite extensively already throughout the prose of the article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@West Virginian: Overall, a really good article! It is quite well-researched offline and very comprehensive. Just a couple picky writing points, basically. Then I can pass. It shouldn't take too long to respond to these. BenLinus1214^talk 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• BenLinus1214, thank you so incredibly much for your thorough and comprehensive review of this article! As you know, it had been withering on the Good Article nomination vine, so I appreciate you taking the time to pick and review it. Please take another look and let me know if you see any other outstanding issues. Once again, thank you for the thoughtful review. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• West Virginian You're welcome! I'm glad that you feel that way. It looks a lot better now, so I can pass. BenLinus1214^talk 22:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: