Talk:May Mailman

Mother Jones article

The Mother Jones article profiling Mailman could be used more in this article. It was published just last month. -- Reconrabbit 17:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Robloxguest3 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to review this GAN! As I review it, I will use this table to keep track of things. After i'm done, I will write a detailed report on the article. I am a new reviewer, any suggestions, corrections or comments are appreciated!

Comments

Review comments are below this table.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Meets critera, I have checked the article's spelling and grammar and found no errors. Article is concise and does not trail off and talk about unrelated things.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Compliant with the MOS, found no weasel words, etc. No lists in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pending
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I have removed some unneeded and strange detail in the Deputy Solicitor General subsection, which said she had 3 children, but then it strangely then said what years they were born. If they are readded, please add the citations after the sentence. I will give the mark after a little more review
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	A brief look at the revision history shows no edit warring or disputes. Only 1 one revert was seen recently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The one image (of Harvard Law) has a copyright tag. cc by 2.0
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Has caption and adds to the article. However, I think maybe a picture of her in the infobox would add a lot.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed! I have reviewed the whole article and did a source spot check. I was surprised on the shortness of the article, but there is not GA criteria on article length.

When I started the review, I did not find any problems that would warrant a quick fail. I did find a sentence that went off the rails a bit, which for some reason it said the years her kids were born in a strange manner. I fixed it. I have checked everything else and found no issues! The article successfully passed! This review took about an hour to complete.Robloxguest3 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.