Talk:Mike Capuano/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. PrairieKid (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I felt it was very well-written. Y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The second paragraph of the Tenure section needs more citations. Citation 20 does not list out all of the positions mentioned. The 4th paragraph could also use another could use a citation. The one provided is written (for lack of a better term) in hindsight. One that was written during the original dispute, before the apology would be good. Besides that, I would say they are all in. ?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Again, with the Tenure section. He has been in office for 15 years, yet the section only has 5 paragraphs, and does not talk about his 5 years in office. The elections section should also be expanded. N

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems there. Y

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Good. Y

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):

   N I would like another image. Perhaps one of his earlier Congressional years, him campaigning, or him giving a speech on the House Floor.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will put this article on hold for one week. The tenure section needs more citations and simply MORE and another image would be very useful. I think it can easily be done in a week. Thanks for all the work already put in to this article and all the work to come.

I now think this article meets the criteria. For further improvement, I would suggest adding to the tenure section. For now, however, I think the article is up to par. Nice work! PrairieKid (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)