Jump to content

Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- I look forward to reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section-by-section review

[edit]

Going through the article to make suggestions for changes.

Images

  • Everything is fine. :-)

Lead

Background

  • This section seems important to state but isn't really 'background' more like 'context'. Maybe mention it in later sections but it is certainly incomplete enough to stand on its own.

Linda Norgrove

  • Good! No issues here.

Kidnapping

Negotiations

  • Seems to omit the a) effect of... b) the end result of... the negotiations

Rescue attempt and killing

Subsequent events

  • Everything good here.

Reactions

  • Good

Concluding thoughts

  • There must be something added to the article to the effect of either 'Implications' or importance. The reader is left questioning why the incident matters and what effect it had on anything. The article is clearly notable, but I feel it must be explained in the article somewhere. Maybe in the 'Reactions section'?
  • Beyond that, the article is well-written and is a viable candidate for GA-promotion.

Cheers, -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I didn't nom this article for GA status but I did work on it quite a bit. I've addressed some of the simpler points and hopefully the other article editors will be able to look into the others too :) --Errant (chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help Errant. Seems you have so far made the needed edits. And thanks to Lord Roem for a good GA review so far.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more change. Please include something about the results of the negotiations and whether they failed (which I guess they did but it needs to be more explicit). Lord Roem (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a dig through and there isn't really anything. One moment they were negotiating, the next minute it was reported there had been the rescue attempt and it kinda got forgotten :) --Errant (chat!) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Great article and interesting subject-matter.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Moving to promote

-- Lord Roem (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]