Jump to content

Talk:US House and Senate career of John McCain (until 2000)/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

My review is in progress. I hope to have it completed by the end of the weekend. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing the review! Do you want me to respond to your comments as you make them here, or wait until you are finished with the whole review? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever you prefer. My preference would be that you hold off until I'm done the review (which should for sure be by the end of tomorrow), but if you want to get working on it right away, go ahead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the review, and the article is now a GA. Well done to all concerned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well-written?

[edit]

The writing isn't terrible, but there's quite a bit of room for improvement. Many sentences could be split up, and semi-colons are currently somewhat overused (these are chronic shortcomings of mine as well), and there are quite a few words that could be eliminated without hurting the prose's meaning. Many words are repeated too frequently; this is especially true of McCain's name. Additionally, direct quotations are somewhat overused. I'm recommending quite a few specific changes below, but one way or another I think the article could benefit from a few thorough copyedits from different editors. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

[edit]

Mostly good; the article is very well-cited. Some issues with the cites:

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?

[edit]

Overall, it's definitely broad (if need be, I could pass the criteria with no further changes). There are a few places I feel that the level of detail could be increased or decreased:

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?

[edit]

Generally. A few issues in a couple of sections:

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

[edit]

Pass. No edits of any kind since January 27. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illustrated, if appropriate, by properly-licensed images?

[edit]

Pass. Image choices are appropriate and all verifiably in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very lengthy and detailed and useful review. I believe I've now responded to all your points. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]