Talk:Isaac C. Parker/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly. Wizardman 20:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found:

There's way more sections in the article than necessary. It fragments the article too much as is; you could cut them by half easily.
"and is known as "Hanging Judge" of " known as the
"Parker sentenced 160 people to death, 79 were executed, the others died while incarcerated, were acquitted pardoned or their sentence was commuted." the second half seems unnecessary as redundant.
The lead doesn't seem to summarize the article much, and could do with expansion.
"Parker married local woman Mary O'Toole," the 'local woman' part feels superfluous and pointless.
"City attorney was a part-time position with a one-year term" I feel like that'd be better in the first sentence of the paragraph, here it just feels tacked on.
"Parker sentenced eight of them to a mandatory death after being convicted of murder.[7] Eight of these men were sentenced on Parker's first court session" So is it the same eight in both sentences? If so that's confusing the way you have it.
"In an interview Parker gave to the St. Louis Republic on September 1, 1896 he stated that he had no say whether a convict was to be hanged and that he favoured "the abolition of capital punishment"." This is interesting given that it seems to contradict the rest of the article; is there more to that quote?
"Parker's funeral in Fort Smith had the most number of attendees up to that point" highest number, though i'm not convinced this sentence is necessary.
To go with the first point there's a good chunk of one and two sentence paragraphs and, by extension, sections that don't flow well together; a restructuring of the article would be helpful.

As written I'm not really a fan of how the article is presented. I'll give it a few days to at least allow for some restructuring then I'll take another look at it, since it seems like the more I read the more questions I had. Wizardman 02:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: Could you please consider putting the review on hold for a week? I don't have a lot of time at the moment between real life and the ArbCom case I'm drafting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit just then if you could take a look. Regarding the death penalty quote, there wasn't anything more there to give context but it appears that a lot of his death sentences were mandatory (it appears there were more laws in the Indian Territory requiring the death penalty). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I'll take a look in a week to see where we are. Wizardman 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: I've done a bit of work on it, what do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll (finally) take another look at this either tonight or tomorrow. Wizardman 00:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found on a second read-through:

I made a few further tweaks myself on sentence structure/order. Let me know if you disagree with any. Also, rather than bothering a second time, any comma splices or punctuation things I just fixed myself as well.
"President Ulysses S. Grant nominated Parker as Chief Justice, Utah Territory to " Just to make it more readable I'd suggest 'as Chief Justive of the Utah Territory'
"with court prosecutor W. H. H. Clayton. Clayton who remained the United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas for fourteen of Parker's twenty-one years on the court." Remove the second Clayton and just put a comma there instead of a period.
"and in "Oklahoma Boomer" case " and in the

A lot close to GA than it was before, I'd say. I'll put it on hold and will give it one more read through once everything's fixed. Wizardman 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last gripe I have is that I don't really see the purpose of the Representation in Media section. The couple that may actually be significant could be merged into the above section (renaming it death and legacy perhaps) with the rest cut, since to me it mostly doesn't have the significance to belong here. That's my only remaining issue though. Wizardman 01:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: Done, only reason I didn't initially is that it was in the article already when I started working on it. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better now. Since everything is resolved, I'll pass the article. Wizardman 13:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]