Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Mitchell Parsons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJoseph Mitchell Parsons has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
January 4, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 29, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Joseph Mitchell Parsons was the first prisoner to die in an execution chamber at Utah State Prison designed to accommodate both firing squads and lethal injections?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Mitchell Parsons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section-by-section review

[edit]

I will go through every section to make specific comments on anything that needs to be changed/fixed/omitted, etc.

Lead

  • Everything looks good here. Maybe a little more context on the Rainbow Warrior mention because it seems a little random. I see you have more stuff in the article later on explaining it, but its mention here seems a bit out of place.

Background

Imprisonment in Nevada

  • Good.

Death of Richard Ernst

Trial and sentencing

  • Again, good. I like how the article is focused so far.

Appeals

Execution

Public reaction

Closing thoughts

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Very good article, well sourced and nicely researched.

  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:
    I especially like your captions which are well-done
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Moving to promote.

-- Lord Roem (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Mitchell Parsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]