Talk:Roger Jourdain

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Jourdain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Varnent (talk · contribs) 23:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Seems well written with no apparent copyedits necessary.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Follows MoS - inclusion of Infobox would be nice - but not necessary for GA.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Controversy section could benefit from a couple more references. Meets GA Criteria for basic needs though.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources appear reliable - mostly newsprint or tribal news outlet.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Does not appear to cite any original research.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Would be helpful to include more personal life information and life beyond chairmanship.	Fail
(b) (focused)	Seems to give undue amount of attention to downfall rather than other aspects of life. Granted that appears to be the most newsworthy aspects - the other areas seem rather skimped over in comparison.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The sentence "Jourdain also attracted criticism for an authoritarian method of governance" in the lead seems a little biased and not specifically stated in the sources. Again, gives appearance of over-emphasis on downfall vs. career and overall life.	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Relatively new article and few editors - but beyond that - no apparent conflicts.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No images used - so no tags to check.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No images used - would benefit from having at least one - but not required per se.	Neutral

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	Giving some time for comments or modifications to be made.

Discussion

• Hi! Thanks for your review. I have a few quick comments, and will make further edits to the article tomorrow.
  • I qualified the "authoritarian" comment and added a source. I hadn't intended to come across negatively toward Jourdain, but I can see why the original phrasing would imply a less-than-neutral meaning.
  • I made a few edits to slim down the "Defeat and controversy" section. Regarding excessive weight given to these events, I respectfully disagree. Sources discussing the subject (usually newspaper pieces written after Jourdain's death) place a substantial focus on allegations of authoritarianism. At the same time, Jourdain received plaudits for his proactive efforts to protect tribal sovereignty; I believe that these efforts are discussed in a manner proportionate to their coverage in outside sources.
• I'd be happy to discuss these thoughts with you whenever you get a chance. Thanks again for reviewing the article! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for making those revisions. I can see your point about the emphasis put on the controversy section. Is there more information about his personal life or other activities? Also, what about adding a section about honors received to help balance things out? To be clear, reading what has happened, I can understand why anyone with knowledge of the history would find his negative actions more interesting. However, I am trying to be mindful of a GA having a good balance of broad coverage on the topic. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• An honors section is a good idea; perhaps a broader "Legacy" section could cover these, as well as his generally-positive impact on tribal sovereignty. I can add one shortly. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that works. Also, are there any media files possibly available anywhere? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 22:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't been able to find any free-use files. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; I just returned today from an out-of-town trip. I'll make some more changes to the article this evening, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's been a month and no changes; perhaps this should be failed? Wizardman 23:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Failed.--Retrohead (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)