Talk:Joe Biden/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Per Wikipedia:WTA#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid, one should avoid the word "claim" when the speaker refers to his own mindset, which this article does many times. Also, try to avoid words like "supposed."

Single sentence paragraphs need to be gotten rid of.

The lead could be improved by more fully summarizing the article.

Use blockquote for the currently-italicized quotations.

In general, the use of quotations can probably be lowered - many are not necessary.

Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section.

Some paragraphs are possibly too big, like the first in the 2008 section.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
So close, but the 1988 section has unsourced information in the first paragraph. Looks good otherwise.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The information on Joe Biden's replacement is probably not necessary, or at least does not need to be covered in such detail.

The Vice Presidential section in general should be updated to include more focused information on Joe Biden.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It's close, but first off, the "claim" stuff should be fixed.

Furthermore, the 1988 section overall does not seem to take a NPOV. It takes a bit of a negative tone.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
There does seem to be more vandalism lately, but as far as I can tell, no actual edit wars. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: On hold for two weeks.

- Minute Lake (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've take care of all instances of "claim" and "supposed". Still working toward GA quality... — X S G 00:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one read what I wrote above. This nom was insincere, from a new account/troll/sock. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it but made the decision on my own that if I could do something to improve the article toward GA quality, I should. Whether the article's GA nomintation was sincere or no, I believe the article is better for my efforts. And maybe when the article gets a sincere GA nod, no one will be able to find the above faults in it. — X S G 06:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI/FWIW this was the GA nominator. Gnan garra 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate what is stated above, this article was nominated by a sock puppet. It is not a valid nomination. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bad faith nom notwithstanding, the review is still open. A lot of article work has been done, and I think the above concerns have been responded to, and the article is a plausible contender for GA. I've pinged Minute Lake to see if the re-review can be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[13:17, September 17, 2008 Minute Lake: I am failing because the time has passed, but a new nomination may be warranted (or a reassessment, I don't have time.)]

The article has a whole lot of flaws. It is difficult to correct it with the election coming up. Take out a flaw and someone thinks you are trying to cover up for the man or trying to smear the man. 903M (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]