Talk:Ruby Laffoon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are a lot of short paragraphs in this article. Can some of them be combined to make it look and read less choppy?

   • I've done a few. Did that help?

   • Fight for a sales tax section. "Despite Laffoon's hateful rhetoric, the sales tax was again defeated." "Hateful rhetoric" is a bit over-the-top, eh? Perhaps tone it down a bit... I agree it wasn't a nice statement, but I think it was fairly par for the course in the '30s, so he wasn't really going against the practice of the day.

   • I've deleted "hateful". I guess it could be considered POV.

   • In the Governor of Kentucky section, you say "Laffoon organized the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels", but in the Later life section it says that Colonels had been commissioned by his predecessors. Which is correct?

   • Both, actually. As mentioned in the "Governor of Kentucky" section, The Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels was an organization to which only Kentucky colonels could be admitted. The title of Kentucky colonel dates back to 1813; the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels was established by Governor Laffoon.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   • The image of Happy Chandler has a note that it needs to be re-tagged.

   • Lovely. That's the second time this tag has bitten me in as many weeks! Although the Biographical Directory says the image is from the Library of Congress, I can't find it in LOC's online catalog. There is this one, which is free, but to me, it makes Chandler look a lot more sinister. I'll work on making the change, though.

   Done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few MOS/prose issues and one question about images. Other than that, the article looks good, and these issues shouldn't take too long to fix. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I was away this weekend. I've made the changes noted above. If they are insufficient, let me know. I'll try to switch out the Chandler image some time today. Thanks for again reviewing my work. I always look forward to a GA review from Dana boomer! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Image fixed. Everything should be good to go now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier... Everything looks good now, so I am passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)