# Talk:Bobby Bostic

I wrote this article because nobody else had, the subject is notable, and I firmly believe I have the skill-level and experience required to write about the subject in a non-biased manner. But just for the record, Bobby is a friend of mine, and I am involved in grass-roots activism raising awareness of his case. I am, naturally, completely open to and encourage other people reviewing what I have written and contributing to the article as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me - thanks for your efforts.
I'm going to add the relevant template so that your disclosure remains even if this talk page eventually gets archived. --kingboyk (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Good for you. Thanks to your efforts this article appeared in today's "did you know", and now a lot of people (including myself) are aware of this injustice. WP at its best :) JQ (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks kingboyk and Jquarry. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Bostic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I've spent the last few hours reading both the article and pretty much every source used, and couldn't find anything particularly noteworthy to complain about. The only two points I could conceivably raise are in the Crime & Sentencing section:

and the belief the sentence could not get any worse. → and the belief the eventual sentence could not be worse than the terms of the plea deal.
Hutson accepted a 30-year plea deal and was sentenced as such by judge Baker. → and was sentenced to such by judge Baker.
But these aren't enough to withhold promotion, so I've changed them myself, but feel free to rephrase if you want to. 
I searched for academic works relating to both the person and the case, but couldn't find anything usable (although found lots about an unrelated Bobby Bostic... some union/labor relations lawsuits from the 50s to the 70s or some such). I'm satisfied all available/relevant information is appropriately contained within the article. Copyvio tool doesn't flag any concerns, and the only image used in the article is of a fair-use image (with an appropriately filled-out rationale) of the subject's likeness, which I think is contextually significant. Happy to promote this article to GA. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the review. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)