# Talk:Lation Scott

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lation Scott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (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: 

Images:
** For the courthouse square image - I'd add the date of the image, to make it clear it's not from the exact time of the lynching/murder.

References:
What makes http://www.executedtoday.com/2014/12/02/1917-lation-scott-lynched/ a reliable source?
Lead:
Not sure we need "angry" in "angry mob" - given the comparison to the Ringling Brothers, I don't think "anger" is the best description of the mob (I'd use "barbarians" but... NPOV)
Early life section:
All the sentences here but the first begin "He.." can we vary it a bit perhaps? The repetition of "He ..." makes the prose feel choppy.
Background section:
"worked for a white farmer working land." I think you can drop "working land" or expand it - perhaps "worked for a white farmer on that man's farm."?
Probably want to mention that he was a preacher? - source, Crisis
Likewise, should probably note that he was expected to be called up for the draft shortly.
Also note that he had passed his draft physical exam so the rumor of syphilis had no supporting evidence.
Also should note that after the woman accused him to passersby - the locals spent until 1 December looking for him, and that he was trying to evade capture.
Mention the reward also.
* Legacy section:

Suggest expanding the legacy a bit with something about how no officials denounced the lynching
Note that the NAACP investigation in 1920 found that the instigators were well known in the county
Also that this was the last lynching in the county
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Ealdgyth: Thank you for the review and the opportunity to work on the article. I think i have accomplished the items in the list above. Bruxton (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I made a few quick copyedits and it's good to go! Passing it now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)