Talk:Larry Itliong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the start I haven't had any role in creating or editing this article. I welcome the input of any other editors during this review.

This is a fascinating and well-written article. Because of my unfamiliarity with the subject matter, I will spend a day reading through some of the sources and complete my review tomorrow. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Exceedingly well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Resolved.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	With the exception of date of death, numerous sources were checked and all matched what was written in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article is one of the best-written I have seen and thoroughly deserves GA status.

I have a few very small issues:

• First, it would be nice if there was an authority control like other biographical articles.  Done
• Secondly, it would be good if the article's reference list was two columns, for readability. That is done by {{reflist|2}}  Done
• Thirdly, some of the major characters in the article could be included as links in the 'See also' section  Done
• Fourthly, there appears to be some plagiarism or close paraphrasing between this article and the source [1], particularly "By 1965 Itliong was living in the Central Valley of California and was the leader of the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, an AFL–CIO union. The committee voted to strike against Coachella Valley grape growers on May 3, 1965. The strikers managed to win higher wages but weren't able to negotiate a contract with the growers." Would value comment.
• Lastly and most importantly, two sources have conflicting dates of death. According to Distinguished Asian Americans: a biographical dictionary, Larry died on February 10, however according to American Social Leaders and Activists, he died on February 8. An obituary, contemporaneous article or death certificate may help resolve this contradiction.  Done

I apologise for the lengthy delay between nominating and receiving this review. I will wait for a response (particularly regarding the last two points) before I complete the nomination. LT910001 (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Although it's quite unorthodox, the outstanding issues are so slight I will fix them myself rather than let this article's nomination slip by. I have updated the table above and promoted this article, having resolved the issues I noted two weeks earlier. LT910001 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have promoted this article. If this is viewed by the original nominator, please feel free to alter the above close paraphrasing (but I suggest leave a message on the talk page explaining that this article was or wasn't the original creator). I have made these edits because the article's quality was very close to GA, and it seems silly to have to redo the entire process again rather than just make the small changes now. I've thusly made the changes and promoted the article. LT910001 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)