Jump to content

Talk:James Davis (escaped convict)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:James Davis (escaped convict)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 01:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IntentionallyDense, I have edited the page and left some notes for you. Ready for your further review. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go over your comments in depth tomorrow as I’m currently on mobile and just checking notifications before I go to sleep. Thanks for being patient with the review process and addressing my criticisms! IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
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. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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). Some issues were found; see comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Great use of images! IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. On hold until nominator can address issues outlined below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

[edit]

Prose review

[edit]

Broadness

[edit]
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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Davis
James Davis
  • Reviewed:
Created by SkywalkerEccleston (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Interesting subject. Article looks good. No QPQ required. Appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Gravestone

[edit]

The image description in the Death section reads: Davis's grave in Toowong Cemetery, 2024. The gravestone has since fallen over and cracked. If this is true, and the stone has cracked since the photo was taken in 2024, that requires a source (and maybe a mention in the article body). If the stone has cracked before 2024 then it needs to be reworded. Renerpho (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the caption SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Details about his death

[edit]

Not a lot of detail is given in the "death" section, even though it is available in reliable sources.[1][2] Is there a reason to leave it out? This does look like an interesting story to me. Charles Lilley presided over the case, should we link to his article?

Also, the article says that Davis was assaulted by his wife Bridget, yet was later found not guilty and consequently discharged (apparently because it couldn't be proven that she had assaulted him). This seems contradictory. Either she assaulted him, or she didn't. Renerpho (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be fleshed out. Could you please add this info into the article? SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added these sources to the article SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SkywalkerEccleston: Ah, thank you! I hadn't seen your reply. Your version looks good to me. Renerpho (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good 👍 SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]