Talk:Ashley Smith inquest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that this is my first review. Judging against the criteria I see the following issues:

2b: Many paragraphs rely on a single citation, despite having several sentences. This is most evident in the 'Early Life' section. I understand in many cases (including the first paragraph in the early life section) the reference at the end of paragraph backs up the entire paragraph, however, I am not sure whether that is sufficient. Can someone please clarify for me? The sentence "On 30 September 2011, the Ontario Coroner's Office formally terminated the inquest and dismissed the jury" most certainly needs a citation.

Action: found an appropriate reference link for this last point and added it.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6: Article lacks any images, which is disappointing, but unfortunately sometimes unavoidable

Action: I'm choosing not to address this; there are numerous images of Ashley Smith out there, but I'm not sure of their copyright status and don't know enough about Wikipedia images and copyright to safely add one. If anyone else wishes to tackle this, please feel free to do so.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how small both the 'Death' and 'Aftermath' sections are, I believe these should be combined. I'm also not convinced 'Aftermath' is the most appropriate word to use here, as I would expect an 'Aftermath' section to cover any inquests, whereas the inquests have their own section.

Action: merged the 2 sections; this seems appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inquest section is the largest in the article, yet contains the fewest number of wikilinks (2). Consider adding more. At least one wikilink added somewhere in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th paragraph of the 'Out of Control' sub-section wouldn't go astray either.

Action: added a few additional wikilinks to both sections. This was hard to do because I was under the impression that if something is linked higher in the article page it does not need to be linked again.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also search tool finds a dozen redirects: [1]. Considering that some of the references were retrieved in 2011, this is not surprising. These need to be updated to prevent WP:LINKROT.

Action: started correcting these, but there's about a dozen, so it'll take me a few days. Update: all links corrected.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I see no issues. Article is well-written, broad in its coverage, neutral and stable. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this is my first review, I contacted a Good article mentor as recommended, to look at my review. The reviewer stated the only thing I missed was a check for close-paraphrasing and copyright-violations. After a comprehensive duplicates check, I find no major issues, and only two things I think could be reworded. 11 word match: 11 million wrongful death lawsuit against the correctional service of canada [2], consider reversing/rewording. Eight word match: agreed to voluntarily give evidence at the inquest [3]. Consider minor rewording. Once this is done we're good to go. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the wording around a little (and fixed a split infinitive while I was at it).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I'm passing it now. Also the mentor confirmed that so long as the citation at the end of the paragraph backs up the entire paragraph, using it only once is fine. It may cause issues for expansion in the future, but it is not a concern for GA review. Freikorp (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]