Talk:Maryland Senate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks quite a reasonable article at or about GA-level. I see that most of your citations are web pages; you have a book, with pages numbers quoted (good); and a 190-page PDF report with no page numbers - that will need to be fixed, but I will come back to that later.

I will now start a more detailed review of the article. It might take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall the article seems to be quite reasonable and is of GA-standard. I have just two points that need to be addressed:

• Ref 9 is a 190-page pdf report and it is called six times. The relevant page number, over page numbers, should be quoted.
• Both the Powers and legislative process and Salaries and benefits sections/subsections mention a three-month legislative period; however, unless I've missed it, the article does not appear to state which three months.

Pyrotec (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominator appears to be inactive. Pyrotec (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)