Wikipedia:Peer review/Ruth Kelly/archive1
This is currently a GA. I'm looking for any comments anyone may have, with the long-term aim of getting this to FA status. SP-KP 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I saw this peer review list at Project Gender studies. Anyway I think its generally very good, I have a few suggestions though.
- The second paragraph in Children's schooling seems unnecessary to me - only the line about the special needs schools near her home is important.
- The Career as an MP section could do with more sourcing.
- The sub-section Sex offenders in schools controversy is interesting & well sourced but not entirely relevant - what did Ruth Kelly say/do/promise about this issue? Similiarly the Trust schools section seems a bit long to me.
- Over all the article reads well and is interesting, well done--Cailil talk 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I saw this peer review list at Project Gender studies. Anyway I think its generally very good, I have a few suggestions though.
- Just a smattering of points:
- The initial section under the "Background" lacks sources
- The "Family history" seems a bit out of the way. How relevant could her grandfather's political views/possible IRA membership really be?
- The prospects section (other than the constituency bit which could be used elsewhere) is speculation of the worst kind and the claim about her deep voice is off the wall.
- If it's notable enough at all, the section on her "Children's schooling" could do with being cut down to size.
- The second paragraph on religion seems a bit speculative. The article provides no basis - other than prejudice and an explicit reference to the speculation by third parties - for the presumption of Kelly's religious opinions might affect her views on scientific and gay rights issues. I think we should have something a little more solid, before we start making these kind of claims. Caveat lector 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)