Talk:Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 15, 2008.
March 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Kentucky Portal
Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

[edit] GA nominee

On first reading

  • reference a in the opening paragraph does not go anywhere
  • put the long quote in blockquote or c quote format
  • look at ...included |, Thomas H. Lacey, and later, Samuel Q. Richardson... text, has a format gone wrong, also at this moment in the article I do not know the significance of Thomas H. Lacey, and Samuel Q. Richardson
  • He was brought to Frankfort, tried before an examining court, and released. He agreed to stay in Frankfort for ten days to allow the court to finish its investigation. then just further on ...Beauchamp's trial began 8 May 1826... a link should be made, when was the decision made' why, how? Also 8 May 1826 is wikilinked but this actually has no releverence to the article, and the reader gains little from it. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive D1

The first review seems to be full of do this improve that, but that is I am afraid the nature of the beast. It is a subject I knew nothing about and now I do, it was informative and interesting, sometimes a difficult combination. On a personal note I would like to see a wider selection of references and ones that I as a reader can access. I will ask others to take a look. Well done you know how to put together an article for wikipedia, long may you edit. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Here are my responses.
  • footnote "a": Fixed. This was a copy-paste error.
  • quote: Changed to cquote.
  • link format: Typo, fixed. I removed the other two names. I just included them because I had them, and because an earlier version of the article included the fact that John Waring later killed Samuel Q. Richardson in an incident unrelated to the Beauchamp-Sharp tragedy.
  • I've added as much information as I've been able to find thus far on the gap between the arrest and trial. There is still a gap between the arrest in November and the indictment in March, but I don't have information to fill in that gap at this point. Presumably, the commonwealth's attorney found enough evidence during the ten-day delay from November 10 to November 20, kept Beauchamp incarcerated, and the wheels of justice just turned so slowly that it was March before an indictment was returned.
I also would like a larger range of resources that everyone can edit, but apparently, there isn't a lot out there on the subject. I prefer to provide publicly-accessible references if possible. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me that as per WP:MOSQUOTE, cquote is to never be used for block quoting, and blockquotes should be 4+ lines in length or multi paragraphs, so I learn something new as well. Personally I believe cquote reminds the reader that they are still reading a quote not the article. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a informative and interesting piece of work.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    to add that bit extra another image or two would be great, and a reference that readers can access.