Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Mumia Abu-Jamal

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is:

promoted.

Thoroughly referenced, useful pictures, informative, stable and neutral. Written in a no-BS style.TruthHider 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs infobox and persondata, to start with... Free Mumia Campaign needs expansion. Duribald 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - suggest that review await GA decision, as the GA review process tends to bring about changes to an article. John Carter 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GA process is now completed. The article is now confirmed GA.TruthHider 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Infobox has been added and changes implemented so that the article now reaches GA (awaiting confirmation from the reviewer). The article, being perhaps overlong already, will not be expanded to included more coverage re 'Free Mumia' - a distinct subject that has its own lengthy article and which is linked to in the parent (ie. main bio) article.TruthHider 11:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can't see any major objections to this article being rated A-class. -Duribald 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So do I close now and effect its promotion or wait a few more days?AboveTheClub 10:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a consensus decision - i.e. more than one vote on what to do - so we just have to wait. -Duribald 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It's a great article, with skillful handling of a controversial subject. A few comments: the last paragraph of the lead section leads one to believe that controversy regarding music will be further explored, but it isn't really discussed -- music is only mentioned briefly under Free Mumia Campaign. Things mentioned in the lead should be more fully explored below. For similar reasons, I would consider moving the last three sections under "Life as a prisoner" into the next section and renaming that section "Controversies" or something like that. The reader has been set up by the lead to look for a section about controversies on many topics, but only "Foreign honors controversies" is there. Also, I would specify in the lead that the naming controversies are international in nature, because it reads like they've happened in the United States. A more minor issue: I think it reads a little awkwardly to set off such short quotes in blockquotes. BTW, nice use of images. --Melty girl 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and these suggestions. The article is overLONG already. 32kb+ is classed as LONG for GA-review purposes. This one's much more. Therefore, more detailed consideration of things such as musical references to him has been farmed out into the Free Mumia subarticle. Three quotes have been given prominence: the two confessions attributed to him, and the biased/racist statement attributed to his trial judge. AboveTheClub 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's fine if you don't want to make the article longer by expanding on certain topics, BUT the problem I raised still exists, so you need to do the converse, because this is a big issue. As per WP:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Leads are summaries of what's to follow. So if you're not going to discuss topics such as controversies in music, these topics should be removed from the lead. I suggest that you carefully review your lead section and remove all topics that are not expanded upon below. (2) Yes, I see the quotes that you've given prominence. It's just that blockquotes are usually used not for prominence/emphasis (bold and italics are), they're usually used to set off longer quotes (see: blockquotes). Very short quotes, particularly one word quotes (i.e. "Yes"), should not be blockquoted. It actually disrupts the flow of reading as you look for the word because it's not where you'd expect it to be (after the word before or at the beginning of the next line). Cheers, Melty girl 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.