GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Drown Soda ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@ MagicatthemovieS: I will be reviewing this article.
I'll do more in-depth on this and work on the review below in the oncoming days, but these are just a few notes to think about. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
Generally speaking, the article does have clean prose; however, as noted in my preliminary notes, there are a lot of choppy one-sentence paragraphs. The article overall needs to be combed through and information combined into cohesive paragraphs. There are other instances of vague information (i.e. On the anniversary of her disappearance, a service was held where the car was found, and her father met briefly with New Hampshire Governor John Lynch–which anniversary is this referring to?) that needs clarification.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
This all registers as stable and accurate, and a "sticking to the facts," so to speak. This article specifically runs the risk of veering into fringe theories that are not factual or have no basis in fact. That said, as per my preliminary notes, it may be worth collecting the predominant theories/thoughts in circulation, though, again, this could be riskier than it's actually worth and may have no place here. Source no. 67 (Kimble) is a permanent dead link, so if archive.org doesn't have a snapshot of this, it may be necessary to find an alternate source. Also, the references do need to be combed through and given a uniform citation style (i.e. since this is a U.S. subject and the refs. are already generally this way, make sure each reference date and access date is uniformly Month, Day, Year).
3. Broad in coverage?:
Again, there is good coverage of the facts, but as I said before, I think the "Significance" section needs more detail regarding the cultural momentum of the case and the significant public interest it has garnered (specifically as a case from the post-millennium era that has received the brunt of "internet theorists"). It is a unique missing persons case for many reasons, and the public interest from online sleuths and the publicity/media it has incited is noteworthy.
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
Yes--as said before, the article does stick to the facts, and does not give undue credence to any theories or ideas, which is easy to do here. The details are presented in a factual manner that avoids insinuation or inference, so nice work on this.
5. Reasonably stable?
The edit history appears relatively stable, and the article doesn't seem to be shifting significantly from day to day.
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Maps are the only "photos" used as illustrations so-to-speak, so this is a non-issue.
Overall: ✓ Pass
Refer to my preliminary notes and points here for the areas where I think this could use some primping. It is near GA status, but there is some work that needs to be done in terms of making the article more "readable" (i.e. combining information into paragraphs). Sources also need uniform citation style, and the "Significance" section could benefit from a bit more information regarding the case's cultural significance, which is intertwined with the internet and internet culture (and honestly probably a large part of why it has received such a detailed Wikipedia entry in the first place). Let me know if there are any questions or clarification needed.
Best --
Drown Soda (
talk) 04:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)