Talk:Genevieve McDonald/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Whilst the prose is not dreadful, we have too much proseline in this article. The article assumes certain things that are not readily evident to an outsider (for instance, I'm not sure where Blue Hill is, or its significance). Related to proseline is the very short paragraphs. I feel that paragraphs should, in general, be longer than two sentences, but no longer than is necessary to convey the point being made. My sentences can run a little long, so I am sympathetic to those who have paragraphs that are either too short or two long, but unfortunately in this case they are affecting the narrative flow.
- 2. Verifiable?: There are parts where I cannot work out what citation references which sentence. I was trying to work out what citation referenced her emancipation from her parents, but it was too difficult to work out reasonably quickly.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: I believe it covers most of McDonald's life, but I'm not entirely convinced we have a thorough accounting of it. For instance, is there further information on why she became emancipated? Do we do justice to her political convictions, other than her love of commercial fishing? Do we have enough detail about her (to my mind!) fascinating captaincy of a major commercial fishing vessel? What about how she managed to win the 134th district?
- 4. Neutral point of view?:
Pass - 5. Stable?: Pass
- 6. Images?: as a person unfamiliar with commercial fishing, I would love to see a picture of her vessel, or one like it.
I commend the editor who did the bulk of the work on this article. Though I cannot say this satisfies the GA criteria, they have done a great first attempt at an informative article about an important politician who has one of the more interesting backgrounds. In fact, it makes me want to read more about her and really learn more about her life and views - she doesn't strike me as the average politician! With some more research and a bit of work on trying to remove the proseline, I think this could be a fantastic article and worthy of becoming a GA.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Aussie Article Writer (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)