Talk:John P. Daley/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll take this one for review too! Should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- I would like to see a little more coverage of the hired truck insurance scandal in the body of the article. In the lead, you describe it a bit and give dates, but in the body you simply say "the hired truck scandal" as if it is something the reader is already expected to know about. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, with no new information, and as it stands right now, it gives information about this scandal that is not given in the body.
- Not much more belongs in the article since he escaped any involvement. Even the Time Magazine article did not mention his name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see a little more coverage of the hired truck insurance scandal in the body of the article. In the lead, you describe it a bit and give dates, but in the body you simply say "the hired truck scandal" as if it is something the reader is already expected to know about. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, with no new information, and as it stands right now, it gives information about this scandal that is not given in the body.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- No image?
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall, this is a very nice article, with just a couple of issues that I would like to see resolved before I pass it to GA status. It would be great to see an image, if possible, although I realize that this is not always possible and is not required for GA status. I would also like to see a little more information in the body of the article about the hired truck scandal...please see above for details. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Allright, things look good. I did a bit of a word tweak to the hired truck scandal section, adding in the date, which was basically what I wanted :) I would still like to see an image, but as I said above, it's not required for GA status, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Overall, this is a very nice article, with just a couple of issues that I would like to see resolved before I pass it to GA status. It would be great to see an image, if possible, although I realize that this is not always possible and is not required for GA status. I would also like to see a little more information in the body of the article about the hired truck scandal...please see above for details. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
