# Talk:Clint Grant

My thanks to his son for—or for helping me find—much of the information in this article. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

... that Clint Grant was the only photographer to accompany John F. Kennedy on his November 1963 trip from Washington, D.C., to Dallas, Texas? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 06:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Chose instead a better one. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clint Grant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this shortly. BenLinus1214talk 01:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@ATinySliver:
Major Comments

There's some sourcing things, especially because the first paragraph of the "Early life" section is unsourced.
Numerous invisible comments within the article; see further explanations below.
You have a lot of non-free images in this article, and I honestly think you don't need all three. The tiger cub is the least relevant, and you might convince me to keep the other two, but if I had to choose one, it would be the post-Kennedy assassination one.
Tiger removed. The other two are highly historical in nature. Edit: tiger restored and funeral removed upon further review of the FU criteria. We can make a strong case for the tiger with its accompanying text. The historical image with Ike Altgens and the Newmans is correctly transformative in nature; the funeral image was not.
Specific comments

The two lead paragraphs are not equal enough—find another place to break it.
Do you have a suggestion? (Edit: meantime, I've re-read WP:LEAD—more specifically, WP:LEADLENGTH—and WP:WBA#Lead section, and I can find nothing about balanced paragraphs with respect to length. Do you have a link to something I've missed? This is the first time I've seen such a thing suggested.) (Edit: I've looked at similar GAs and did some additional work.)
In the lead, the death sentences should be combined: "Grant died in Dallas at age 93 of heart failure.
A single-sentence paragraph would not pass a theoretical FA. Again, do you see a logical place for a different graf break? (see edits above)
First "early life" paragraph is entirely unsourced.
See invisible comments; there are several within the article that explain spots that might appear unsourced otherwise. This is the recommended style per WP:LINK.
"they had" instead of "they'd"
Fixed.
"Grant once said he had his own tricks…" this paragraph is a bit confusing…there's a lot of jargon with no links and it's a bit informal.
Fixed.
"The candidates in Texas, 1960": do you need all this background? Also, clean up the tone. Does this need its own subsection?
Yes; historically pertinent per the DMN, but appropriately brief per WP:UNDUE. (see edit below)
Put a ref after "when we heard one shot—pause—two shots in rapid succession."
Added invisible comment referencing the next invisible comment. (Edit: I've now added a couple of these.)
"Several photographers are also seen in the frame…" source?
Fixed.
"Reporters Remember 11-22-1963" shouldn't get its own section—maybe a subsection.
Sorry, I disagree on this one, and strongly. This was a 30th anniversary panel in which Grant was one of the journalists reminiscing on that day in Dallas. Edit: I've rearranged the sections and subs.
For the awards part, ref name it a few times throughout the paragraph to make it seem more wide-reaching.
Invisible comment added. Otherwise, I'm missing your point—are you suggesting WP:OVERCITE?
Be sure to clear this stuff up, especially the major comments. BenLinus1214talk 02:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: see above. I look forward to your further comments. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage  03:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@ATinySliver: This is looking a lot better to me. On the invisible comments, I don't see why you shouldn't just ref name all the refs and place them in appropriate locations, for several reasons—one, I don't see anything about invisible comments at WP:LINK, second, invisible comments do not appear to readers of the article and thus do not provide the reader with a source to verify or find more information. If you can find a guideline that proves me wrong, please do so. Other than that, I'm comfortable passing. BenLinus1214talk 03:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214: Well, shit—this was something someone else pointed out to me during a previous GAN, and now I can't find it. Okay, gimme a few minutes.  —ATinySliver/ATalkPage  03:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That oughta do it. Thanks so much for your help and input! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage  04:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Great! That's better. Pass. BenLinus1214talk 01:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 01:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)