Talk:Richard Gerald Jordan/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Afddiary (talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! I have started a Good Article review of this page so I can help with the backlog and "pay it forward," so to speak, since I just had one of my own articles awarded GA status. Although I have created and heavily participated in editing one GA so far, this is my very first GA review, so please be patient with me as I work through learning the expectations! Afddiary (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2022 (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. |
08/02/2022 - This has been addressed. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
08/02/2022 - All of the above issues have been adequately addressed, save for one, which I assume has not been addressed due to the lack of sources to elaborate on what Jordan's friends, relatives, and death row guards said in his defense. One final, minor suggestion: in the "Early life" section, you might link the word "physical" to physical examination. |
| 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. | As far as I could tell, for all sourced articles, you used links to the article images rather than links to clippings of the individual articles; you also archived these article image links. The result is that people who do not have Newspapers.com subscriptions cannot access the texts of these articles and are taken to a paywall; only through the direct article image link (and unfortunately not through the archived article image link), they may either purchase a subscription, or access a rough automated transcription of the articles via optical character recognition (OCR text) for free, which is generally not a problem unless the OCR text is illegible. The archives will take readers to the same paywall and not to the OCR text, and thus, they don't really archive useful information that could be used to verify the sourced information later.
08/02/2022 - This has been addressed. I deeply appreciate you clipping all of the articles, especially as it was something that was not necessary but a kind gesture. :) |
|
|
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). | Even with the above critiques of the specific links used for each source, each source is reliable. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Not 100% finished checking this. BY SECTION:
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Stays focused on the topic and addresses all important main aspects, from the personal life of the subject, to the legal issues in his case. |
|
|
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. | Neutral tone achieved and maintained. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No editing wars. |
| 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. | There are no images in the article.
07/25/2022: Unfortunately, due to uncertainty about the copyright status of all proposed images, I'm not sure if we could ever get pictures in this article. Even so, pictures are desired, but not mandatory, for a Good Article. As someone who is very new to this GA process and relatively inexperienced when it comes to verifying the copyright status of pictures, I personally don't feel well equipped to decide whether or not any of the proposed pictures would be acceptable to include on Wikipedia. I'll mark this as a "yes," but maybe at a later time, someone else with more experience in this area could verify the copyright status of the proposed pictures for this article and include them. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No images yet, but the issues here have been addressed above. |
|
7. Overall assessment. | I can check on plagiarism/copyright violation either later tonight, or tomorrow. Also, I humbly ask that you be patient with me if I add or update any of these sections over the next few days, as I sometimes struggle with focus and may have missed some things on my first few looks through the article, or I may have changed my mind on other things that may not have raised concern the first times around. I apologize if this causes any inconvenience.
08/02/2022 - All other concerns in this article have been addressed, save for me continuing to check the sources for copyright violations, which, although belated, I am currently in the process of doing. Unless there are any problems there, I don't think there's anything left for you to do. Thanks for everything you've done to work on and improve this article! |
Hello Afddiary -
Thank you so much for your work on this review. I'm replying down here because I wasn't sure if you were okay with me responding to your points within the table. I appreciate your insights. I implemented your suggestions with a few exceptions. Please don't worry if the reviewing slows down. I am making a stressful job transition this week and next week, so I may not be very timely myself.
My personal preference is to avoid short sections most of the time, and I haven't found enough information on each trial to warrant much expansion, but I will keep looking. I'm still looking for a few other things, like the trial testimony of Jordan's relatives and the prison guard. I will see if I can find the names of the lawsuits, but I think it may come down to primary sources. Good catch on the link to bifurcation; I added it, just a little earlier in the article than suggested. I changed "state supreme court" to U.S. Supreme Court because I originally goofed up; the source clarifies that the reversal stemmed from a SCOTUS ruling, not from the state.
I've clipped a few articles here and there, and I can do it for this entry if necessary. I view it as a nice-to-do - but something that is beyond the scope of GA. Unless I am misreading, WP:FNNR (the layout style guideline referred to in criterion 2a) doesn't require convenience links. Even if the link goes completely dead, the citation should be complete enough for a reader to locate the source (either a physical copy or a link to another archiving service).
I really dislike submitting a GAN without images (or publishing any article without them, to be honest). The issue is that I keep running into copyright concerns with this subject. The MDOC information page doesn't clarify the copyright status of the mugshot, and it doesn't specify which agency took the photo. Some state DOC mugshots will fall under WP:Public domain because the images are created by a government agency, but this depends on the jurisdiction (and whether the DOC even took the photo). The newspaper image of Jordan is presumed to be copyrighted as well. Since Edwina Marter isn't a living person, we could ordinarily claim fair use on her image, but AP Newswire photos (or photos from other press agencies) generally violate the respect for commercial opportunities fair use criterion (see WP:NFCI #8). Heck, I'm tempted to use that image at Burl Cain (which is a free image), but it's not a great pic and Cain isn't that closely connected to Jordan.
Thanks for your work so far. It's no problem at all to go back and update various sections. I do that a lot as a reviewer. (I usually don't use GATable until the end of the review because I find that the updating can get too messy, but it's up to your personal preference as a reviewer.) I will try to watch out for new feedback. Feel free to ping me, especially if I don't seem to be responding. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Afddiary - I forgot to ping you recently when I finished addressing the above feedback. I have expanded the article a bit, giving each of Jordan's death sentences its own section. As I suspected, the reliable sources don't report the names of the legal cases as far as I can tell. I hate that we still don't have an image in the article, but I can't find one with an acceptable copyright status. I have a few GAs without images, and they usually involve living people in prison like this one or living people who spent much of their lives in prison like this one. Thanks for your work! Let me know what else I need to address. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hey! I apologize for taking so long to finish everything; I've had a lot of things come up in my personal life lately that have limited the amount of time I've been able to spend on Wikipedia. I'll finish reviewing all of the changes made to the article and accordingly update the criteria table ASAP. I apologize again! Afddiary (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Status query edit
Afddiary, Larry Hockett, where does this review stand? It's been over a month since the most recent post to this page, and the review was originally opened over three and a half months ago. Afddiary, if you don't have time, perhaps we could request a reviewer to finish up via second opinion. It looks like a second opinion is needed anyway regarding the image criteria, so perhaps whoever it is could finish the copyvio checks as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. I know we don't like to leave reviews open for extended periods of time. I am ready to respond to any remaining issues, but there is no particular sense of urgency on my end, so whether Afddiary decides to finish this up or to toss it back for a second opinion, there are no hard feelings either way. I appreciate the feedback so far! Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I apologize for taking so long to finish this review. I have never done a GA review before, and I wouldn't say I'm in a great place right now (in terms of time and focus) to complete the copyvio component of the review. I am so sorry. Afddiary (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! I just asked for another reviewer per the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)