# Talk:Steve Wariner

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Wariner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: User:ChrisTofu11961 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
I was happy to help review an article pertaining to country music. There are not enough of us actually writing the articles. 
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
As stated previously, make sure that you are including an overview that makes sense for the article you are writing. Steve Wariner has had a long career and a short overview would not make sense to readers. It is important we provide the best snapshot of the article as we can. Thank you for fixing that per my sugestion. Another thing to be mindful of is run-on sentences. Be careful with making sentences too long as I noticed a lot of long sentences throughout the article. The meaning of the sentence got lost in its length. It is also better to use active voice rather than passive voice (subject of the sentence first). Just something to be mindful of as you continue to write.
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: 
You did a great job here! I learned a lot about Steve Wariner in reading this article.

Nothing I saw n read was right bout real steve 2601:588:C001:12F0:7CB9:69AA:A5AC:D221 (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Editors,

This is my first talk page post, so I hope this is more or less how you do it, and I look forward to constructive feedback.
In the "Personal Life" section of the Steve Wariner article the existing text reads that Wariner fathered his first son "although the two were not married at the time." 
I propose the deletion of these approx. 47 characters for the following reasons:

Relevance: The marital (or extramarital) status is emphasized in a way that doesn't contribute to our understanding of Wariner's public life or career. In fact, the section reads just as informatively without it by offering a clear chronology of his children's births and his marriage.
Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The redundant/emphatic inclusion of this statement, especially by using the word "although," can imply a value judgment in many cultures and contexts.
Privacy of Living Person: Overall, this phrase seems unnecessarily invasive. The "Biographies of Living Persons" (BLP) policy states:  "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..."  and, "[BLPs] must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Thanks in advance for talking about these 47 characters with me. 
Best regards, 
min
Minerviades (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 of this question might concern deletion of this thread as well. Toward the top of this talk page there is a reminder: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
I wouldn't think this issue is at the level of libel, and it seems to be sourced (?), but should we also remove this thread after resolving this question in the spirit of privacy? Anyone familiar with the norms and rules? Thanks!
-min | Minerviades (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)