Talk:Rónán Mullen/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: fourfound and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The lead does not fully summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD
Not done
Stray sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs, see WP:Manual of Style (layout)#ParagraphsDone
- Prose otherwise is reasonably well written.
- Could you expand on this? Thanks--Patchthesock123 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly, the lead does not fully summarise his parliamentary career. the sentence "Mullen is a frequent media commentator on social and political topics and is well known for his work on right-to-life issues, human trafficking and immigration, hospice care and religious freedom." is hardly adequate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that User:Snappy is reverting your edits to the lead. I have asked them to comment here. This pattern of editing is destabilising the article and I cannot pass it if this is going on. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly, the lead does not fully summarise his parliamentary career. the sentence "Mullen is a frequent media commentator on social and political topics and is well known for his work on right-to-life issues, human trafficking and immigration, hospice care and religious freedom." is hardly adequate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The lead does not fully summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
The three dead links from the site {http://www.oireachtas.ie/} (ref #1, #10, #13) may just be down due to maintenance, please check in a day or so.The parliament site is OK now, I have replaced the other dead link.- Other references check out,
citation neede tags need to addressed, also the clarification and who? tags
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}y} b (focused):
- a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}y} b (focused):
- 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):
- Tagged, licensed and captioned
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- The lead and the stray sentences need addressing still. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, there is a content dispute between Snappy and the nominator. That needs resolution rather than edit warring. I am not listing at this time as the article does not meet WP:GACR criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
GAR Comment: Hi, In general I agree with Jezhotwells, though I've added a couple of tags to the article text: it would be better if those who accused the subject of obstructing the bill were named. 2)The phrase "constitutional filter" is never explained. I am not entirely ignorant of politics but couldn't understand it. 3) The list of Mullen advocacy in the first paragraph of the Seanad section needs a reference.
The dead links worked for me, I presuming that it was a temporary website problem and which has now been resolved.
I've gone ahead and expanded the lead, further suggestions are welcome. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, I think all the above are all fixed up. --Patchthesock123 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I removed that pov rubbish which is a direct copy from the subjects website and is unreferenced by other sources. Snappy (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)