Jump to content

Talk:Sylvia Mathews Burwell/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]

Review started

[edit]

I'm taking on this review.--Mr. Guye (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
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.

 Already done. Procedural pass. Copyedited by the GOCE member Corinne just prior to nomination.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

 Already done. Procedural pass. Copyedited by the GOCE member Corinne just prior to nomination.

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.

 Pass

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).

 Pass

2c. it contains no original research.

 Pass

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

no Not approved Mild violation: see report
 Fixed.

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

 Pass

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

 Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

 Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

 On hold. Do we have a consensus on the title?
There is a consensus. Pass.

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.

 Pass

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

 Pass

7. Overall assessment. Accepted

Comments

[edit]
Thank you for asking, Mr. Guye. I thought that editors close to the article were not supposed to participate in the review. Is that an incorrect understanding?  – Corinne (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio
[edit]
My understanding is the higher the percentage the more likely there is to be an issue. When I've found issues, the percentage is usually in the 80%-100% range. The percentage here is 29.1% and it says "violation unlikely." The comparisons show that the tool is picking up things like "Secretary of Health and Human Services" and the names of the schools she attended. To be on the safe side, I changed "She is the daughter of," since that got picked up as a possible violation. Can you please clarify what problem you see with the results? Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Knope7: That is why I said mild copyvio; the similarities were somewhat minor but still questionable. I think it is better now.--Mr. Guye (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title dispute
[edit]

Drive-by Comments

[edit]

I'm not reviewing this article, but I just wanted to point out a few quick things:

Werónika (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

The article passes all parts of the Good article criteria. I accept it as a Good Article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]