Talk:John Millner

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John J. Millner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this nomination. I should be able to begin my review with initial thoughts tomorrow today. PrairieKid (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I waited. I have been busy the last two or three days and completely forgot about this review. I'll start now. PrairieKid (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial Thoughts

• WOW! That's short...
• Where is a biography section? The date and place of his birth?
• Could use a ce
• Good citations
• Needs more detail on house and senate time

Rubric

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article does not yet meet the criteria... With some hesitance, I am putting it on hold.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some grammar and spelling errors. It is readable but not perfect. Once more is added, more sections also need to come about.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I could only check on the few that were linked, but those were good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article ignored a lot of Millner's personal life and didn't go into his career much, which is disappointing.

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing this article on hold for one week, for changes to be made...

Overall

OK- The necessary changes are:

• Better grammar and spelling
• MORE! MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE!
• Basic information

Good things to add (not required by any means are):

• Images

A reminder- once more is put into the article, the intro should also be expanded.

In all honesty, I think this is one of those articles that simply does not have the potential to become a GA. I don't want to be pessimistic and I certainly came in hopeful. A lot of work needs to be done. I'll be back on June 26th to check in again, if not sooner. PrairieKid (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I apologize for not responding in a timely fashion, since I've been busy over the past week. I'll try to address your concerns shortly, but I understand if you must fail the nomination to meet your timeline. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. You're fine. I was beginning to get worried. I will give you a few extra days to meet the deadline. Thanks! PrairieKid (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find additional sources to expand the article. However, I can continue to copyedit my text. Would that be sufficient? Edge3 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't pass the article as is, even with the ce. I'm sorry. Some articles simply can not become GAs. I am going to have to fail this article. PrairieKid (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)