Jump to content

Talk:John W. Winters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:John W. Winters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: I'm done here; not going to bother putting this on hold since you're usually fairly quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All my concerns addressed
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All concerns addressed
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    No issues
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    References look solid
    C. It contains no original research:
    Spotchecks are clear
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig's tool flagged one sentence that was too close to the source; I've fixed it.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No extraneous information
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Comments addressed
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All issues addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

[edit]
  • The article glosses over the move from NYC back to Raleigh; is any information available?
    • The source did not provide any details.
  • "was disqualified from service due to scars left by a childhood illness" This is very strange; certainly the first time I've heard of someone being disqualified for evidence of injury. Does the source have any details?
    • Unfortunately not.
  • "on the account of his black race" A bit awkward: I would suggest "because he was black", or even "due to racial discrimination"
    • Changed to "because he was black".
  • "Raleigh's black leaders" "leaders" is a bit peacockish. I'd suggest "wealthy or influential black men" or some such.
    • Changed to "black affluent men".
  • "excluded from white groups" "groups" is weird. "Clubs"?
    • Changed to clubs.
  • "he helped devise a strategy" Do we know what this was? If not, I'd suggest simplifying to "participated in efforts to increase..."
    • Source was not specific, changed to "participated in efforts to increase".
  • "ran as a Democrat for a Senate seat of the 14th district, representing portions of Wake, Lee and Harnett counties" It's odd to place these details after the sentence about his first run; do we know if that was for the same seat, and with the same affiliation? If so, I'd suggest reordering.

Predecessor

[edit]

Who was the African American city councilman who preceeded him in 1900? Were any of his other predecessors notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]