# Talk:The Robesonian takeover

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Robesonian takeover/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

No WP:GAFAIL issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
For the most part the prose is fine, spelling & grammar are ok too but I think the lead section should be made clearer re: the investigations into possible corruption into county law enforcement while Sheriff Stone was in charge from 1978-1994 and the subsequent investigation that found corruption while Sheriff Maynor was Robeson County Sheriff from 1994-2006. Maybe the last sentence in the lead section could be changed to something along the lines of "The governor's task force ultimately found no evidence of wrongdoing at that time in the Robeson County sheriff's office while it was supervised by Sheriff Hubert Stone." The different County Sheriffs and the complete timeline could be confusing to someone not familiar with the events. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarified that no evidence of corruption was turned up "at the time." -Indy beetle (talk)
In the "State proceedings" section, this sentence "Jacobs fled to the Onondaga Reservation in New York and, after being identified by local police during a traffic stop, was ordered to be extradited by the governor." exactly which governor of which state(New York or North Carolina) is a little unclear. Shearonink (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Governor of NY, clarified. -Indy beetle (talk)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
MOS, etc. - all look good. Shearonink (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
I am going to have to go over the references more thoroughly. I did find an apparent rendering of the Greg Barnes/The Fayettevile Observer/June 18, 2006 "Tarnished Badges" article but the website has it under a different title - "Some Not Surprised By Robeson Lawmen's Arrests" - at this website - https://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/Robeson.html. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
They're fine. My comment re: the 2006 Greg Barnes article is a nicety, nothing more. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
Statements are backed up by scrupulous research. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Ran Earwig's copyright violation tool. Very very clean - no copyright violations. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Yes it does, stays focused on what happened before the hostage-taking and the subsequent events. Shearonink (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Yes! Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
At present this GA criteria is On Hold:
The last sentence of the Legacy section implies that Stone apparently might have had little to do with the corruption changes but that is not what Lowery's "The Lumbee Indians: An American Struggle" has to say about Stone on Pages 194-197, online source found here, starting at Page 194: https://books.google.com/books?id=9_5mDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false . Shearonink (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hubert Stone was definitely a shady fellow. As I recounted on his own Wikipedia article, he was accused by another deputy under oath of participating in a protection racket with a drug dealer and was never investigated for it. There's also speculation of him being involved in coverups surrounding the murders of Julian Pierce and James R. Jordan Sr.. That said, he was never convicted or otherwise definitely proven to have done anything wrong, and he always denied ever doing anything improper, so I don't think its fair for us to say in Wikivoice that he did. If you'd like, I can summarize his quote in more neutral Wikivoice along the lines of "Having retired in 1994, Stone maintained that under his supervision deputies did not engage in corrupt activities."
That makes sense, re: neutral Wikivoice. I just thought it was interesting that he wasn't investigated so many times y'know? Your proposed adjustment looks good. Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This sentence "Corruption in the Robeson County Sheriff's Department was later uncovered by a state investigation in the 2000s." is unnecessarily vague. The term "2000s" could mean anywhere from the year 2000 until ...? Specific years or a specific timeframe should be provided. Shearonink (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted that the investigation began in 2002.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Very stable. No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Copyright statuses for the 2 images are correct. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Both images are relevant and are suitably captioned. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Criteria 1A and Criteria 4 should be adjusted or need to be replied to before I can proceed any further. All other Criteria are basically a Yes. Criteria 2B is just a nicety, I want Indy beetle to know that the Greg Barnes/Tarnished Badges content is available for free (might want to webarchive it). Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
With regards to the Barnes article, yes I'm aware of it being available there. That was actually where I first located it, I then went back through my university database to confirm it and cited it directly to the newspaper's website. November.org looks like a blog so I figured that it wasn't the best thing to cite. -Indy beetle (talk)
Fair point re it being a blog. Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
As soon as that one last sentence (re: Stone & possible corruption) is adjusted, I'll complete this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Shearonink: Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)