Bill Keating (politician) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 10, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bill Keating → William R. Keating — More information in name. At least two links point there already. — Wwmorganjr ( talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For someone who is a politician for pretty much his entire life thru many different capacities there is not much at all here on his views about just about anything or his voting record. plenty on offices he held but nothing on his views. also a large portion of this article is citation needed. If anyone wants to take a stab at it.. feel free - Tracer9999 ( talk) 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Each current Senator and Representative uses the CongLinks template for a reason. The recent deletion by Tracer9999 of the fields for official Congressional biography, voting record, C-SPAN appearances, Govtrack, and Washington Post extended biography are inexplicable, especially when the edit notes state: "External links: trimmed external links by a little bit.. we dont need 3 biography pages that repeat the same thing etc.. its becoming a link farm)" Clearly these links are much more than that, and they are provided to help the citizens of Massachusetts, not to help partisans bury or cover up the public statements and voting records of a public servant. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Designate, I'll be glad to take this one. Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review. I'm hoping to complete initial comments on it tonight, but if not, they should be done in the next 1-3 days. Just as a heads-up, I plan to be mostly on wikibreak from July 12-19, so we may need to take a break mid-review. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This looks good overall and ripe for promotion. Thanks for your work to bring it to this point. I have a few quibbles, noted below, and made a few tweaks; let me know your thoughts:
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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Keating (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Bill Keating (politician) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 10, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bill Keating → William R. Keating — More information in name. At least two links point there already. — Wwmorganjr ( talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For someone who is a politician for pretty much his entire life thru many different capacities there is not much at all here on his views about just about anything or his voting record. plenty on offices he held but nothing on his views. also a large portion of this article is citation needed. If anyone wants to take a stab at it.. feel free - Tracer9999 ( talk) 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Each current Senator and Representative uses the CongLinks template for a reason. The recent deletion by Tracer9999 of the fields for official Congressional biography, voting record, C-SPAN appearances, Govtrack, and Washington Post extended biography are inexplicable, especially when the edit notes state: "External links: trimmed external links by a little bit.. we dont need 3 biography pages that repeat the same thing etc.. its becoming a link farm)" Clearly these links are much more than that, and they are provided to help the citizens of Massachusetts, not to help partisans bury or cover up the public statements and voting records of a public servant. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Designate, I'll be glad to take this one. Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review. I'm hoping to complete initial comments on it tonight, but if not, they should be done in the next 1-3 days. Just as a heads-up, I plan to be mostly on wikibreak from July 12-19, so we may need to take a break mid-review. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This looks good overall and ripe for promotion. Thanks for your work to bring it to this point. I have a few quibbles, noted below, and made a few tweaks; let me know your thoughts:
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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Keating (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)