Talk:Josh Phillips (murderer)/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Light&highbeautyforever in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Light&highbeautyforever (talk · contribs) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Getting started. This is my first GA review so I want to make sure I am thorough and learn correctly. Happy to help with this process. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Finished and submitted to a mentor for a look-over. Will keep an eye and submit to someone else if I don't hear. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to report this is a very good review and shows a good grasp of the requirements of GA. I made a couple of minor tweaks but nothing special. I would strongly advise taking on another review for an article which isn't such a good condition to start with, just to get a feel for where to pitch comments: I tend to provide suggestions that are beyond GA but of course they aren't to be used to judge the article against the criteria. Almost invariably nominators appreciate the extra effort though, and everyone benefits (especially our readers, from going the extra mile. Good work everyone here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks The Rambling Man. I will definitely search out a GA nominee that is farther from passing as my next one. Appreciate your timely feedback. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to report this is a very good review and shows a good grasp of the requirements of GA. I made a couple of minor tweaks but nothing special. I would strongly advise taking on another review for an article which isn't such a good condition to start with, just to get a feel for where to pitch comments: I tend to provide suggestions that are beyond GA but of course they aren't to be used to judge the article against the criteria. Almost invariably nominators appreciate the extra effort though, and everyone benefits (especially our readers, from going the extra mile. Good work everyone here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- Couple things:
- In the Appeals section, "A hearing date was set in 2005" is ambiguous. Does it mean the hearing was in 2005 or that the date for the hearing was set in 2005? And if it means the latter, when was the hearing?
- I've reworded this to make it clearer. Unfortunately I can't find any press coverage of the hearing itself, though that obviously means the possibility of a new trial was denied. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've never seen it written "no-parole life sentence"; can "no-parole" be used in this way? I've only seen "life without the possibility of parole" but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
- Good point. I've changed this. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Couple things:
- b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- Not sure about the diploma photo as a source. Is there a record somewhere that the degree was conferred?
- I don't think so, but I suppose it's not important when the diploma was obtained, so I've removed the source and reworded accordingly. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure about the diploma photo as a source. Is there a record somewhere that the degree was conferred?
- c (OR):
- d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
- Is there more information about both the length of the trial and the length of the deliberation? Considering the mention of the fact that the defense called no witnesses, I think this is an important detail to understand the initial trial process. The article mentions that the trial began in 1999, but an understanding of the specific date(s) would elevate the understanding of the trial and the feasibility of the appeals/re-sentencing.
- The existing source just states it 'didn't take long' for the jury to convict him. As the trial was in 1999, it's not surprising that media coverage at the time is not still easily available online. I've actually applied and been approved for access to NewspaperArchive through The Wikipedia Library, though approval only came through two days ago and I was told it might take up to two weeks for the access codes to come through. It's probable more detailed information could be found through there, though as you've already contacted a mentor I might wait to see if they think this needs fleshing out further at GA level. I was hoping it already has enough detail to pass through at this stage, but we'll see I guess :). Damien Linnane (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just passing by – I have Newspapers.com access and found this, which states that the trial was two days long and that the jury deliberated for "more than two hours". There's plenty more coverage available there, so let me know if there's anything else you're looking for. (Wikipedia:Newspapers.com has some info on how to cite clippings.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Extraordinary Writ, that's really helpful. I've now fleshed out the trial section, and that source also enabled me to add an extra sentence to another section as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks great! Much better sense of the speed of it all. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Extraordinary Writ, that's really helpful. I've now fleshed out the trial section, and that source also enabled me to add an extra sentence to another section as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just passing by – I have Newspapers.com access and found this, which states that the trial was two days long and that the jury deliberated for "more than two hours". There's plenty more coverage available there, so let me know if there's anything else you're looking for. (Wikipedia:Newspapers.com has some info on how to cite clippings.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The existing source just states it 'didn't take long' for the jury to convict him. As the trial was in 1999, it's not surprising that media coverage at the time is not still easily available online. I've actually applied and been approved for access to NewspaperArchive through The Wikipedia Library, though approval only came through two days ago and I was told it might take up to two weeks for the access codes to come through. It's probable more detailed information could be found through there, though as you've already contacted a mentor I might wait to see if they think this needs fleshing out further at GA level. I was hoping it already has enough detail to pass through at this stage, but we'll see I guess :). Damien Linnane (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is there more information about both the length of the trial and the length of the deliberation? Considering the mention of the fact that the defense called no witnesses, I think this is an important detail to understand the initial trial process. The article mentions that the trial began in 1999, but an understanding of the specific date(s) would elevate the understanding of the trial and the feasibility of the appeals/re-sentencing.
- b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall: Nice article. Very close in my freshman opinion. Thanks for this opportunity to learn the process.
- Update after nominator revisions: Looks great. Congrats Damien Linnane.
- Pass/Fail:
