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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I will be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Only a few minor clarity issues, so I've fixed them myself.
- I also have a few style notes, though I'm not going to count them against the criterion: First, the word "however" is used to start several sentences, but it doesn't serve any purpose. Second, Hall is referred to by name a considerable number of times; greater use of the word "she" might improve readability in areas where the subject is unambiguous.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- Lead: The lead is a bit too long for an article of this length. It needs to be made more concise by trimming details.
- Layout:
- There are several paragraphs that only have one or two sentences ( MOS:PARA).
- Is there a significant dividing line between "Early political career" and "Later political career"? This division seems arbitrary, and I wonder if her four periods of consecutive time in office would be better dividing lines.
- The section "Presidential politics" feels out of place compared to the otherwise chronological nature of the section, though I don't know whether dividing it up into the timeline would be an improvement.
- The heading "Impeachment of George W. Bush" implies an actual impeachment. This needs to be renamed.
- Words to watch: Only minor issues, I've fixed them myself.
- Fiction: N/A
- Lists: N/A
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Article has a standard reference list.
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- All sources appear to be reliable. Most are local newspapers or government records. The nominator's clipping of relevant articles on newspapers.com to make them accessible is much appreciated.
- C. It contains
no original research:
- All claims are cited, and spot check shows that content reflects sources.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- Passed Earwig search.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Covers political career, early life, and major political stances
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- Excessive detail throughout coverage of political career. Several paragraphs go into unnecessary detail on elections, listing candidates, vote counts, and vote margins. These should be reduced to describe the outcome in simple terms and give the reader a general sense of by how much Hall won or lost.
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- All political elements and viewpoints are described with NPOV.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- No recent edits.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Three copyrighted images, all critical to the topic with fair use justifications. Captions sufficiently describe context when appropriate.
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- Images are all relevant and provide appropriate context with captions.
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article is very close to meeting the GA criteria. All it needs is a little work on the section headings and some trimming in the lead and body. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so these changes can be made. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article has now been improved to meet the GA criteria in their entirety. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Break
-
Thebiguglyalien, Thanks for your review! I'll begin to revise the parts you mentioned.
Curbon7 (
talk) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- One other suggestion I forgot to make. If you think it's worth maintaining the detailed election information, the standard is to use an electoral history section, similar to
this one.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree, in my opinion. I find those are often unwieldy, and think we should reserve those only for the actual election articles, as they often
take up too much room and stick out poorly.
Curbon7 (
talk) 18:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't love them, but it's one way to preserve the level of detail without making the body itself unwieldy. But it makes no difference to me as long as criterion 3 is met. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree, in my opinion. I find those are often unwieldy, and think we should reserve those only for the actual election articles, as they often
take up too much room and stick out poorly.
Curbon7 (
talk) 18:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- One other suggestion I forgot to make. If you think it's worth maintaining the detailed election information, the standard is to use an electoral history section, similar to
this one.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I adjusted the beginning of the Later career section to start at 1986 (prior, I had just picked 1990 as a fairly arbitrary date). I think this makes the most sense, as this is when she switched parties and it connects her third tenure into one section instead of splitting it in half. Let me know if you disagree and/or think another way may be better. I've also cut out the bulk of the excessive election details. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (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.
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I will be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Only a few minor clarity issues, so I've fixed them myself.
- I also have a few style notes, though I'm not going to count them against the criterion: First, the word "however" is used to start several sentences, but it doesn't serve any purpose. Second, Hall is referred to by name a considerable number of times; greater use of the word "she" might improve readability in areas where the subject is unambiguous.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- Lead: The lead is a bit too long for an article of this length. It needs to be made more concise by trimming details.
- Layout:
- There are several paragraphs that only have one or two sentences ( MOS:PARA).
- Is there a significant dividing line between "Early political career" and "Later political career"? This division seems arbitrary, and I wonder if her four periods of consecutive time in office would be better dividing lines.
- The section "Presidential politics" feels out of place compared to the otherwise chronological nature of the section, though I don't know whether dividing it up into the timeline would be an improvement.
- The heading "Impeachment of George W. Bush" implies an actual impeachment. This needs to be renamed.
- Words to watch: Only minor issues, I've fixed them myself.
- Fiction: N/A
- Lists: N/A
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Article has a standard reference list.
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- All sources appear to be reliable. Most are local newspapers or government records. The nominator's clipping of relevant articles on newspapers.com to make them accessible is much appreciated.
- C. It contains
no original research:
- All claims are cited, and spot check shows that content reflects sources.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- Passed Earwig search.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Covers political career, early life, and major political stances
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- Excessive detail throughout coverage of political career. Several paragraphs go into unnecessary detail on elections, listing candidates, vote counts, and vote margins. These should be reduced to describe the outcome in simple terms and give the reader a general sense of by how much Hall won or lost.
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- All political elements and viewpoints are described with NPOV.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- No recent edits.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Three copyrighted images, all critical to the topic with fair use justifications. Captions sufficiently describe context when appropriate.
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- Images are all relevant and provide appropriate context with captions.
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article is very close to meeting the GA criteria. All it needs is a little work on the section headings and some trimming in the lead and body. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so these changes can be made. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article has now been improved to meet the GA criteria in their entirety. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Break
-
Thebiguglyalien, Thanks for your review! I'll begin to revise the parts you mentioned.
Curbon7 (
talk) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- One other suggestion I forgot to make. If you think it's worth maintaining the detailed election information, the standard is to use an electoral history section, similar to
this one.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree, in my opinion. I find those are often unwieldy, and think we should reserve those only for the actual election articles, as they often
take up too much room and stick out poorly.
Curbon7 (
talk) 18:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't love them, but it's one way to preserve the level of detail without making the body itself unwieldy. But it makes no difference to me as long as criterion 3 is met. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree, in my opinion. I find those are often unwieldy, and think we should reserve those only for the actual election articles, as they often
take up too much room and stick out poorly.
Curbon7 (
talk) 18:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- One other suggestion I forgot to make. If you think it's worth maintaining the detailed election information, the standard is to use an electoral history section, similar to
this one.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I adjusted the beginning of the Later career section to start at 1986 (prior, I had just picked 1990 as a fairly arbitrary date). I think this makes the most sense, as this is when she switched parties and it connects her third tenure into one section instead of splitting it in half. Let me know if you disagree and/or think another way may be better. I've also cut out the bulk of the excessive election details. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (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.