Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   In the Background section, "Robert Kennedy" is mentioned, but reading further, in the Assassination section, "Robert F. Kennedy" is written and it would be best that "Robert F. Kennedy" be mentioned first and then you can add "Robert Kennedy". I'm not an expert with "law terms", but shouldn't this sentence, in the Perpetrator section, ---> "The judge did not accept this confession and it was later withdrawn", be re-written a little better. In the Conspiracy theories, this sentence ---> "Some persons involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious problems with the official case", it would be best to replace "persons" with "individuals".

   B. MoS compliance:

   It wouldn't hurt to link "New York" in the lead. In the Media coverage section, it wouldn't hurt to link ABC, CBS, and NBC. The dates need to be linked per here.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Does Reference 27 cover ---> "One doctor slapped his face, calling, "Bob, Bob," while another began massaging Kennedy's heart"? In the CIA section, does Reference 48 cover all the third paragraph info?

   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:

   Image:Robertkennedy.jpg appears to have be missing source information and that needs to be fixed. Changed to a free public domain image from the commons. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments - give us 24-48 hours (editors in multiple timezones) to get this sorted I'll let you know when we're there Fritzpoll (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, think we're finished. I added a new citation to complement 27 which has the same information that you were concerned was unreferenced. Source 48 doesn't cover all the third paragraph info, just the last line. The first part of the paragraph is covered within the film that it refers to. Do you want the film to be cited inline, even though it is explicitly attributed in the text? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be best to add the film citation. Overall, the article looks well, just adding the film source makes the article be steps from it from becoming GA. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)