Talk:James Davis (escaped convict)


GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:James Davis (escaped convict)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 01:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IntentionallyDense, I have edited the page and left some notes for you. Ready for your further review. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go over your comments in depth tomorrow as I’m currently on mobile and just checking notifications before I go to sleep. Thanks for being patient with the review process and addressing my criticisms! IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
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. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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). Some issues were found; see comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Great use of images! IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. On hold until nominator can address issues outlined below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

[edit]

Prose review

[edit]

Broadness

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.