Talk:Zong massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--or at least as glad as possible with the grim subject matter. In the next few days I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately take care of myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On a first pass, this looks like very strong stuff: well written, sourced, and organized. I don't anticipate any serious problems in this being promoted to GA.

A few points where the article could use more clarity:

• "The crew could not have known that the island was at that point in the possession of France" -- who would the crew have assumed the island belonged to--indigenous peoples, Spain... ? A bit of historical context would help make the issue clear.
• "At this point, James Kelsall claimed that there" -- ambiguous-- does this mean "this is the point that he claimed this" or "James Kelsall later claimed that at this point"?
• "responds to the story of an enslaved African" -- in what way does the novel respond to this story? Would it be accurate to simply say the novel "tells the story of..."?

Other points:

• If The Slave Ship is notable enough to have its own article, it seems worth including a sentence or two in the text that the event inspired this painting.

Take a look at the above and let me know what you think. Again, thanks for your work!

Checklist

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.	Prose is clear, spotchecks of Boime, Rupprecht, and Swaminathan show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--really excellent work.