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

Nominator: Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs) 20:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 03:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article. Since this is my first GA review, I might ask asilvering for a second opinion if I have any doubts. Full review to follow in the next couple of days.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Concerns:

• the jury returned a verdict of Guilty I don't think that "guilty" needs to be capitalized here.
• asked Mann to stop the execution please rephrase "stop the execution" - it is vague and may suggest that the execution was currently taking place when she asked him to stop it
• he granted a two week reprieve so the NACW adding a "that" between "so" and "the" would make the phrase sound more natural and less abrupt
• at 7:23am needs to have a space between "7:23" and "am"

* "Execution" section should likely be placed directly after "trial" section and before "public reaction" for flow, because it is jarring to go from Christian --> the press --> back to Christian within three sections

• • Thank you for reviewing this! I've made all of the other changes you suggested, but I think reorganizing this would be more confusing. Chronologically, the reactions from the NAACP, NACW, Chicago papers, etc all happened after the trial but before the execution. If we move this section, then the reader will jump back and forth in time, which I think will be more jarring, not less. Thoughts? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghosts of Europa: After reconsidering, I believe you are right. I've striked that one off. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• she maintained she acted in self-defense please consider rephrasing that to "she maintained that she had acted in self-defense", for consistency with the next phrase in the sentence
• "The Richmond Times Dispatch" could probably be wikilinked to "The Richmond Times-Dispatch" instead
• February 22nd should be changed to "February 22" per MOS:DATES

Refs: Checking refs #1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 32, 55, 57, 80, 85 - chosen at random with a random number generator

• 1: Checks out
• 2: Checks out
• 8: Checks out
• 12: Checks out
• 13: Checks out
• 32: Checks out
• 55: Checks out
• 57: Checks out
• 80: Checks out
• 85: Checks out

Conclusion: Excellent article, extensively sourced, and meets all of the GA criteria. All of the nitpicks I had with the prose have been fixed. With this considered, I will promote the article to GA status. Congratulations to Ghosts of Europa for the brilliant article. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]