# Talk:Jim Rivaldo

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jim Rivaldo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 23:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 02:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. I need time to review the references to familiarize myself with the subject. A.Cython (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Overall, I feel it is well-developed, but it needs some work to get there.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The prose had been improved.  The prose is problematic in several instances where additional/subjective information is added. For example,
 The first sentence in the lead: Jim Rivaldo (April 15, 1947 – October 17, 2007) was an American political consultant. A gay man, he , who worked with Harvey Milk on his political activism and campaigns for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 
I have made these changes, but I am leaving this as two sentences instead of one, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, as he was not solely notable for the Board of Supervisors campaigns.
 Still in the lead, two sequential sentences starting with "After": After graduating, he moved to San Francisco and befriended Harvey Milk. After Rivaldo consulted Milk's unsuccessful 1975 supervisor campaign, the two established the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club. 
 Still in the lead: He died also in 2007. 
 The same rigorous process must be done in the rest of the article.
I  have made some changes, including the ones you suggested.
 The lead would benefit from clearly explaining what made him special in his work.
I believe I have done so by mentioning his award "for his role in electing gay and African-American politicians".
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Overall it appears factual from what I have checked. However, some additional in-line citations would help, especially with statements that need additional explanation. For example,
Rivaldo befriended Harvey Milk in the early 1970s after patronizing his camera store. I do not quite get the meaning of "patronizing." Do you mean as a frequent customer or attitude-wise? Please use words that do not have ambiguous meanings. This applies to the whole article.
Done. I think I have removed all ambiguous phrasing.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
 While it is focused on the subject, it needs some context to understand his contributions. For example, some context on how good he was in his work or what made him special.
For context, I've added the fact that Harvey Milk was one of the first gay officeholders in the country.
New comment: Please add citations in the lead section, as it does not have any at the moment.
@A.Cython: There's nothing in the lead section that requires citations per WP:LEADCITE. Everything in the lead is mentioned in the body. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree, it may be redundant, but I find it helps in the future stability of the article, so consider it optional.
New comment: At the end, you have a quote, "great gay genius lost to history", without any citation. Please include a citation to support the claim.
I think you've misread this; I attribute it in the sentence: "Writing for The Bay Area Reporter, Shum Preston, an associate of Rivaldo..." — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Still, the end of the sentence needs a citation, which, if I am not mistaken, is reference 8. Every quote needs a citation. How can I verify that " Bay Area Reporter, Shum Preston" said this? I hope you get my point. After this, I think you are good.
@A.Cython: Ah, I see what you mean now and I agree. Done. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Appears neutral.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
It appears stable, with no edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The portrait used is non-free and recently added, however, a justification has been provided.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
No verdict yet until the above comments are addressed. Otherwise, I would have to fail it. A.Cython (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@A.Cython: I have addressed your comments. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the article has improved and passes the GA criteria. While relatively small, it is adequately sourced and focused on its subject, adding a different perspective on the politics of San Fransisco. Good work. A.Cython (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)