Talk:Roy Earl Parrish/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7, we're just about there. Please address the issues below; in general, they're minor and should be quickly fixable. This is a fascinating and well-written article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7, are you available to fix the issues below? —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Unusually, no prose fixes required at all. This is a very well-written piece; kudos to the nominator.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Sources are almost all reliable historic newspaper articles, well-formatted. Note: "was blown to atoms" is something you don't see in headlines anymore! If anything the article is almost too reliant on contemporary newspapers - has Parrish not been mentioned in many books or academic sources since the 1910s? Not really a roadblock to GA, but would be good to have some retrospective perspective. Spot-check of 7 sources (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49) reveals no issues, no close paraphrasing or copyvio.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	This sentence is too closely borrowed from source: "Roy Earl Parrish was born on November 24, 1888, in Wallace, West Virginia. He was the third of seven children" - modify to avoid copyvio. Issue addressed. Earwig finds nothing else, but hold for manual spot check given that Earwig can't handle newspapers.com clippings. Spot-check of 7 sources (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49) reveals no other issues, no close paraphrasing or copyvio. Some appropriate quotes, nothing excessive. Issue addressed, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Cannot find anything else of significance. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The March 12 1915 episode is very interesting; perhaps a bit too detailed for my taste, but nothing that would prevent the article getting to GA. However, if you can trim a sentence or three from the paragraphs dealing with the 1915 session, that wouldn't hurt. Also, Goodykoontz is a great name! The quote from his superior while he was liason officer should be shortened. Issues addressed, pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Other than the overlong quote mentioned above, no other issues. Conditional pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here, pass.
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.	No issues, both public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Two portraits, captions are fine, no problems.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.