Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Curbon7. I'll be starting this review of Marjorie Taylor Greene with a blank template below, so please don't be taken aback that all of the answers are question marks, and please don't fret if I skip over some while doing other, easier ones first. Right now, I'm just going to go through all of these individually and mark them as I analyze them; if I have any questions, concerns, or ideas, I'll note them. You can keep track of the review's progress here and ask any questions anytime you'd like as well, and if you'd like me to review certain criteria in a specific order, that's fine too. =)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Combining 2c and 2d into one and breaking them up into article sections.

   Lead:

   Early life, education, early career, and activism:

   U.S. House:

   2020 congressional campaign:

   Tenure, committees, and caucuses:

   Political positions:

   Up to COVID-19 mandate comparison:

   Up to foreign policy:

   Controversies:

   Up to false flag claims:

   Up to Camp Fire:

   Responses within and outside Congress:

   Personal life:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The only aspect I see as missing right now is Greene's opposition to the Green New Deal, but upon reflection, that's more of an FA nitpick. What constitutes major aspects and focus is liable to change, but right now, the article is broad in its coverage without straying from the subject matter.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I know this point on such an inherently controversial article subject will receive the most scrutiny of any of these criteria, so I'm going to assess each principle in WP:VOICE separately as well.

   Avoids stating opinions as facts:

   Avoids stating seriously contested assertions as facts:

   Avoids stating facts as opinions:

   Prefers nonjudgemental language:

   Indicates the relative prominence of opposing views:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fairly stable edit history; indefinite extended confirmed protection.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Update 1: @Curbon7: The review is going well so far. I could only find one statement that isn't cited whatsoever, which I've marked with a 'citation needed'. I'm a bit swamped with verifying claims, checking grammar, seeing if any major aspects have been missed, etc., so I was hoping you could find a source for this claim or amend it accordingly if you can't. Also, I've gone ahead and passed 6a, as all images used seem to have a solid explanation for being in the public domain. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Update 2: 2b passes, insofar as all citations are appropriately reliable for statements made. Whether all of these statements are attested to in these reliable sources falls under the purview of 2c, which I'll review in conjunction with 2d. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Update 3: 1a, 1b, and 3b pass. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, thank you for such an in-depth and hands-on review! Curbon7 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: For what it's worth, most of my contributions easily fall outside the scope of a normal GA review, as GA criteria – while stringent – aren't nearly as nitpicky as I am. Only fixing what strictly needs to be fixed for the article to pass is mind-numbingly boring, and I think getting hands-on and fixing minor issues over the course of the review is overall more fun and more beneficial to the article. A corollary to this is that most of the changes I make aren't vital to the GA review, so feel free to undo or modify any changes you think don't work. So far I haven't found any major issues whatsoever, and I should be passing 1a and 2b soon. I'd be surprised if I found any major issues with the prose, spelling, or grammar (I could probably pass 1a right now, but I want to make sure I've nitted every pick), and every source I've seen so far seems reliable enough for the statements they support, including the ones with no consensus for reliability. I'm going to replace one Mediaite source just because better sources exist, but that wouldn't have influenced a pass/fail for 2b. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I'm going to pass 3b, but I foresee an issue that could arise within the next few years. Given Greene's 2020 campaign – the primary, the runoff, and the general election – is her only electoral history thus far (barring a bit of news about 2022), I think the amount of information the article has on it is solid. However, in the future, assuming e.g. Greene isn't primaried in the 2022 race, some less critical information is going to have to be migrated off to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia § District 14, 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia § District 14, etc. While fine and even preferable now (I think migrating anything right now would detract from the section), the amount of information we currently have seems pretty much unsustainable after a couple more election cycles at most. Regarding 2a, I think the only three major aspects missing right now are information about her 2022 campaigning (e.g. fundraising, who she'll be facing, etc.), her relationship to AOC (especially as it pertains to the Green New Deal), and her thoughts on the January 6 Capitol riot (e.g. that the rioters were actually Antifa, her friendship with Anthony Aguero, her request to be on the January 6th Commission, her call for "justice" for Ashli Babbitt and saying those arrested for rioting are being "abused", etc.) I think her relationship with AOC would just be best as maybe a couple sentences under 'Tenure', but I think it might be appropriate (more research required) to start a brief '2022 congressional campaign' subsection (a subsection whose main article should eventually be 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia § District 14, whenever that gets created). Likewise, it definitely seems to me like a subsection on the Capitol riot would be appropriate under 'Political positions' or 'Controversies' (more research required to determine which, but likely the latter given her attempt to join the Jan. 6th Commission). I'm also going to pass 1a and 1b, as I believe I got any issues with 1a, and guidelines from the Manual of Style for layout, word choice, and lead are met. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, Sounds good and yeah any future issues will certainly be dealt with when they eventually come up. Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Glad to hear it. I'm going to break 2c and 2d into chunks to give you and myself some meaningful feeling of progress; I'll start with the lead and work from there. Assuming each citation takes me about a minute, it should take a smidge under 5 hours total. That only leaves 3a, so if you want to hop on that while you have some free time, the review could be finished up by tomorrow. I'll let you know when 2c and 2d are finished, but you can check up here to check on their (probably non-linear) progress. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I'm going to finish up 2b and 2c tonight. I'm working on the second section set forth above, but I found a statement which failed verification. I marked it with 'citation needed'. If you'd be able to find a reliable source substantiating that, it'd be much appreciated. If you look and aren't able to find anything, I'll see what I can dig up, since it seems plausible. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, alright. I'm also adding the links you provided a few paragraphs up. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: In that case, I actually went out and found a source. Our statement actually seems to have been false (can't say for sure; maybe she sold her ownership of it or something?), insofar as Travis Mayer still owns the gym. Greene just left the business. So no worries about that; I'll add it in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: That wasn't me trying to relegate you to menial work or anything. I genuinely had no idea I would find the relevant information so quickly; I thought I'd be digging through local news sources. I probably should've checked more thoroughly first; sorry about that. Haha TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, it's ok! . It's actually some pretty important info we left out (her vote against Jan 6 Commission). We're getting to the point in the tenure section where we may need to split off a sub-section somewhere just for the Capitol stuff and aftermath. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Well, I just ran into an issue. That Vimeo citation under 'Personal life' was actually to a video that's been dead since a few months ago. Even though the information in the video isn't crucial to the article, that does mean we probably have to pull that information out and just leave it on the talk page for someone to work on later, as nothing we quoted is listed in the Politico Magazine source that also cites the baptism video. It's possible someone somewhere had the foresight to archive it, but that's probably the only hope of keeping this information short of finding those exact quotes elsewhere in an article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Paging Critical Chris in the vague, unlikely hope that they have an archive of the video. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I'm going to be finishing up the review today, but first, I'm apparently going to expand the 'LGBT rights' subsection, as it appears there's a fair bit left to cover. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: A bit of an update: I'm a bit stuck on 2c for her 2020 campaign right now due to ostensible OR by Critical Chris. Although true, little bits and pieces aren't verified in sources provided, so I'm having to either find new ones to supplement or (I haven't done this yet, but may have to) simply remove the unverified material. Sorry this review is taking so long, but I'm sure you understand. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, It's fine! Take as much time as you need Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Actually, I think this is going to be one of those ones where I need your input. There's an intractable problem with OR in the paragraph about the February 29 rally: the rally where she posed with Doles was the same February 29 event (as shown by e.g. the image being posted March 1 on Doles' VK.com), but it's just not reflected one way or the other in any reliable sources I could find through extensive searching. Therefore, we can't imply that it was the same rally, but it would be false of us to suggest it was a different rally. Unless an RS can be found explicitly stating that these two are the same, the paragraph is unsustainable. I have an idea to salvage the material from the paragraph, and I'd like for you to take a look once I publish the edit, as I recognize this is a bit of an ad hoc solution to this problem. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Before I use plan B (breaking up and reworking the paragraph), I'd like for you, as another experienced editor, to take a look at the solution I implemented just now. I believe using Chester Doles as the primary source for his taking the picture with Greene on February 29 is easily enough to make such a tame statement verifiable, but I wanted to see what you think. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I slightly reworded the paragraph to make way for some punctuation, but otherwise it was fine. I don't think we should link to Doles' posts though, since that would be primary sourcing, right? Curbon7 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: The primary source is necessary because no secondary RS I can find explicitly states the photo was taken at the; however, Doles' social media (known to be legitimate, as outlets such as the AP and the AJC have referenced Doles' VK account) posted the photo after they "hit all" the pro-Trump rallies in northern Georgia. That said, it could technically be a mild form of synthesis , so I do have a plan B. It'd be a bit of a shame, as we'd be "missing" the exact date of when it happened and where, but I recognize that sometimes there's just nothing you can do about this sort of thing. Also, I appreciate the punctuation cleanup, as the sentence ran on a bit too long. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but there's a big issue with 2b (all inline citations are from reliable sources) - according to WP:RSP, 2013-onwards Newsweek, Business Insider, Washington Examiner, Media Matters for America, Fox News (politics), Salon, Mediaite are all yellow-rated - marginally reliable or no consensus for reliability. There's eight uses of 2013-onwards Newsweek, five uses of Business Insider, five uses of Washington Examiner, four uses of MMFA, two uses of Fox News, one use of Salon, and one use of Mediaite. There's also one use of Truthout, a non-profit organization. There's two uses of Law Enforcement Today. There's one use of a WaPo op-ed being used for facts (Katie Hopkins). Disclosure - I'm #10 for edits to and authorship for this article. starship.paint (exalt) 12:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Notify Curbon7 / TheTechnician27. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Starship.paint. I'm aware of what WP:RSP says, and besides one which I admittedly missed (Mediaite), I've vetted all of these articles to make sure they comply with reliability guidelines. The fact of the matter is – and RSP signals this right out the gate – that context matters, and a yellow rating on RSP does not blacklist such sources from being cited as reliable. These sources have not been considered by the community to be generally unreliable, let alone deprecated. I was originally going to do this after I passed (or, I suppose, failed, though in my opinion that seems unlikely at this point) the article, but I'll address all of these individually now instead. Sorry for the wall of text, but I have given these a fair bit of thought.

• Mediaite: I was actually unaware that a Mediaite source was in the article, as I must have missed it – a genuine oversight on my part. I previously removed a Mediaite source for exactly this reason, and I've now removed and replaced this one as well, as the article very clearly blurs an opinion piece with a news article.

• Newsweek: I've given these all a once-over just to be sure I haven't missed anything (in one case, I did, but it's not the article's fault). I'll address all of them here.

• The first (145 by Ewan Palmer, 02/05/21) is one that I know to be perfectly acceptable, as it's simply a transcript of a publicly available speech of hers.

• The second (283 by Jason Murdock, 01/18/21) is simply used for a direct quotation of Greene's.

• The third (21 by Jeffery Maritn, 01/13/21) is simply used to state that Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden. It directly embeds a tweet of hers stating: "On January 21, 2021, I'll be filing Articles of Impeachment against Joe Biden for abuse of power." Therefore, again, no reason to believe it's unreliable for this statement.

• The fourth (138 by Tom Batchelor, 09/21/20) is again used for another direct quotation and nothing else.

• Upon further reading, the fifth (163 by Ewan Palmer, 06/05/21) actually doesn't technically say what we say it does. We state: "In the letter, she also called COVID-19 a manufactured bioweapon intentionally released by China." However, the article does not mention that the bio-weapon claim was actually in the letter (and the letter itself never technically does claim this, instead choosing to "JAQ" and very heavily insinuate that COVID-19 is a bioweapon). I'm going to go ahead and fix this, so I'm glad I re-read just to check. Nevertheless, I believe there's no issue with using the source itself for a direct quotation.

• The sixth (171 by James Crump, 05/21/21) paraphrases another direct quotation. The current sentence reads: "After Greene was fined a second time for $2500, she referred to Pelosi as "Speaker Maskhole" in a tweet." However, "After Greene stated she was fined a second time for $2500, she referred to Pelosi as "Speaker Maskhole" in a tweet." may be more appropriate, as it's merely a quotation of Greene, not a reliable source independently saying she was indeed fined that much.

• The seventh (253 by David Brennan, 02/05/21) is merely about what the CoP and the ADL directly stated.

• The eighth (254 by Jack Dutton, 01/29/21) is again just us citing an aggregation of quotations.

In essence, none of these are problematic (except the bio-weapon one, but that's our fault, not the fault of the article), as they're merely referencing direct quotations of public statements. Note that, per RSP, "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis".

• Fox News: Neither of these uses are problematic or even questionable whatsoever. Our first use of the first article is for a direct quotation from Greene; the second use of the first article is for a direct quotation from Anthony Fauci responding to Greene. The only use of the second article is a statement of fact about what Greene said in a Fox News interview.

• WaPo op-ed: The WaPo op-ed can be replaced with from The London Economic. Likewise, I could, in conjunction with the Economic, cite the original video on Twitter which was cited by a NYT op-ed. The reason I opted not to replace it with the Economic is because half the article consisted of "Here are random people's responses to this video on Twitter." Furthermore, looking at the context, the WaPo source is reliable for an exact quotation. Nevertheless, I can go ahead and change it to the Economic after this – not for reliability reasons, but upon reflection, both because access to the WaPo is limited and because the paragraph we're actually citing is hidden deep in the op-ed. I believe this will be a lateral change in reliability while making it more accessible and less tedious. Update: This is actually apparently not feasible, as links to the Economic are apparently blacklisted. However, I have a better source in mind which I'll replace the WaPo citation with, again for the reasons listed above in favor of the Economic.

• Business Insider: A very recent RfC returned that: "There is currently no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The only thing that users seem to be somewhat in agreement on is the site's use of clickbait headlines, but other than that, opinions seem to vary too drastically to point to one specific consensus." None of the Insider articles that we cite feature said clickbait, and I (having frequently dealt with the source while editing and having read the entire RfC) view the source as roughly equivalent in reliability to The Independent. Articles on modern US politics reference the source quite regularly, and I see no issue with using it unless 1) the claim is extremely contentious and/or 2) other, more reliable sources (e.g. misc. agencies, the NYT, etc.) contradict it. Having personally read all of the ones this article cites, I have no reason to believe that any of the article's uses of the Insider are problematic.

• Media Matters: All of our uses of Media Matters are unambiguously attributed. Furthermore, all Media Matters sources that are used in the article have been cited as reliable sources of fact by e.g. Vice, The Washington Post, Vox, and BuzzFeed News(as an example, Vice, the WaPo, and Vox all cite this reporting by MMfA). None of these uses, therefore, are problematic, as all of the articles we've cited from them are known reliable sources of fact.

• Washington Examiner: Should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims, but the fact is that we do not use it to substantiate any exceptional claims. I heavily considered the one about Greene's letter to the Biden administration, solely because part of the title, "New demand to probe Fauci's ties to Wuhan lab, Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him fired", ostensibly implies an unproven conspiracy theory about Fauci. However, what it says about Greene and the letter (i.e. the part that our article refers to) is entirely unexceptional, and thus I don't see an issue with using it. The rest of the four Examiner citations are about direct quotations from Greene herself and, in one case, about how she visited D.C. in 2017 to protest a gun control compromise, also unexceptional.

• Salon: What we're citing from the Salon article is a direct quotation from John Cowan, and Salon links directly to a video of the GPB debate published by Cowan. The rest of the article persistently links to reliable sources. Once again, there's no good reason to treat the article as unreliable, and furthermore, there's no need to attribute it to Salon, as we're citing a quotation rightfully attributed to Cowan. Citing the video directly would technically satisfy this as well, but linking to videos is a recipe for eventually losing the source to the sands of time, as text is far easier to preserve.

• Truthout: The relevant portion of the Truthout article cites a press release by PFAW when they state that PFAW has called for Greene's removal. However, even though the source is reliable, verifiability doesn't always imply inclusion, and I think 'Responses outside Congress' should be reserved for especially notable responses, lest it become too diluted like one of the old 'In popular culture' sections. PFAW is a notable organization, but the only mention of their press release is two short paragraphs in one article, and it's not an especially big deal that such an organization would call for her removal, so I think the passage should simply be removed (I'd originally moved it there from a far less relevant section, and it doesn't really fit anywhere else).

• Law Enforcement Today: These are both used as primary sources. The first source is a list of articles Greene has written for LET, and the second source – one of her articles – is unambiguously credited to Greene herself. Said article has been cited by FactCheck.org as verifiably written by Greene: "After posting the petition, she promoted it through a story on a website called Law Enforcement Today, which is run by former police officers." LET would be deprecated via the snowball clause in an RfC (if anyone actually considered it important enough for one), but as a strictly primary source for minimally contentious claims (e.g. "Greene wrote 27 articles beginning in January 2018"), it's entirely acceptable. See: WP:ABOUTSELF.

Context matters when assessing reliability, and – except where I missed the Mediaite citation – I believe I've adequately done so. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: - thank you for the detailed reply. WP:V is not the only policy in play here. WP:DUE also applies. If something can only be sourced to a sketchy source, with no reliable sources attached, how is it important enough to include when reliable sources have apparently ignored it? We can't possibly put every tweet, every press release, every comment, every media article about her, every primary opponent's comment in here. It can be indisputable that she said something and yet it is not important enough for us to include. Using reliable sources is how we use discretion. See below. starship.paint (exalt) 05:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• During the same debate, Cowan questioned Greene's acceptance of Paycheck Protection Program money despite her opposition to congressional appropriations of relief funds during the pandemic. (only sourced to Salon and YouTube)
• In an August 2020 interview with Fox News, she indicated her support for defunding Planned Parenthood (only sourced to Fox News)
• She said she intended to continue "pulling the [Republican Party] to the right." (only sourced to Fox News)
• In 2017, Greene visited Washington, D.C. to protest against a Republican gun control compromise (only sourced to Washington Examiner)
• On June 17, 2021, Greene introduced a bill to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (only sourced to Washington Examiner and press release)
• On June 4, 2021, Greene sent Biden a letter demanding an investigation into Fauci, alleging an association with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a "potential involvement in the cover up" of the lab leak hypothesis.[161][162] In the letter, she also called COVID-19 a manufactured bioweapon intentionally released by China.[163] (only sourced to Washington Examiner, tweet and Newsweek)
• as the "Hate All Police Bill" and a "defund-the-police bill", (only sourced to Washington Examiner and press release)
• a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+27, it is the 10th-most Republican district in the nation (only sourced to Business Insider)
• Greene filed articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, alleging abuse of power on January 21, 2021, the day after Biden's inauguration (only sourced to Newsweek)
• She stated: "The government will never tell me how many guns I can own, and how many bullets I am allowed to fire if someone were to attack me or my kids. (only sourced to Newsweek)
• After Greene was fined a second time for $2500, she referred to Pelosi as "Speaker Maskhole" in a tweet (only sourced to Newsweek)
• Groups such as the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Anti-Defamation League criticized Greene's promotion of conspiracy theories tinged with antisemitic overtones[253] and commentators, elected officials, and others ridiculed it (only sourced to Newsweek)
• Upon returning to Twitter the next day, she criticized the company: "Contrary to how highly you think of yourself and your moral platitude, you are not the judge of humanity. God is. (only sourced to Newsweek)

See above. We should replace with reliable sources. If we cannot, it is WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 05:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE applies as follows: "mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". I've shown how each of the articles is reliable for the claim asserted, and none of these statements are too extensive proportionate to their weight in said reliable sources (with one exception which I'm going to fix; see below); therefore, this information constitutes due weight. I don't feel like wikilawyering back and forth about these (though I will wikilawyer a little and bring your attention back to RSP. For sources where due weight is an issue, you'll see it noted under 'Summary'; none of the sources listed have such a signifier in their summaries); I don't see any of them as constituting undue weight. I don't mean to seem dismissive or impolite, as I recognize due weight needs to be evaluated especially carefully for BLPs; I just believe weight and reliability have both been established, and I think removing these statements would actually detract from the completeness and due weight of the article.

I've gone ahead and replaced the Newsweek article for Greene's impeachment of Biden – not to demonstrate due weight, but rather because that article was written January 13, whereas the filing happened January 21, so post facto sources are better (plus we already had one of the sources, meaning less reference clutter, and neither of these are limited access; yay!). While I was at it, I added references to further substantiate due weight for the statements I contributed, as I don't want to appear biased toward my own contributions in the GA review. I'm also going to add sources to the first Newsweek citation in 'Responses outside Congress', because as I noted above, it could become very diluted if we just list any organization that's criticized or praised her, thus due weight becomes a larger issue. To correct one thing, the "YouTube" source is a mirror – linked to by a reliable source (just having three brief posts on the noticeboard sans an RfC and ending up with a yellow exclamation mark for sometimes having an editorial bias [this article does not reflect such a bias whatsoever] does not make it an altogether unreliable source) – of the GPB debate itself, i.e. it's a source from Georgia Public Broadcasting.

As an aside: regarding productivity, I will note that this discussion has made me realize that the 'Donald Trump and Joe Biden' subsection (regarding election results and attempt to impeach Biden) probably doesn't belong unless it's substantially expanded, as it consists of two sentences solely about material taken almost verbatim from elsewhere in the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: - I've taken the time to replace what I've highlighted above, myself (at least, those that you didn't already clear up, thanks for clearing some) with better sources. I am glad to say that most of the content was vaguely replaceable on the same topic. For During the same debate, Cowan questioned Greene's acceptance of Paycheck Protection Program money despite her opposition to congressional appropriations of relief funds during the pandemic. - I found Project On Government Oversight and New York, the former of which does mention Cowan but reliability is unknown, the latter of which is reliable but doesn't mention Cowan, but does mention the loan. Perfect is the enemy of good, so I'm just leaving this here on the record if anyone wants to challenge it in the future. Now, for In 2017, Greene visited Washington, D.C. to protest against a Republican gun control compromise, I couldn't find another source for it. I believe it's unimportant and WP:UNDUE due to the lack of coverage. We should remove it. starship.paint (exalt) 13:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: @Curbon7: Alright, that makes sense. I might see what I can find on Greene's trip to D.C. some other time. I'm going to catch up on the review. Sorry for being gone so long; just been busy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• TheTechnician27 How's the review going? Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Curbon7. Real life stuff butted in (not anything bad; just hectic), and because this article is so active, each day I missed lost the review more momentum and requires more work, but now that that's passed, I've made some time to catch up and finish up the review tomorrow evening, as it's pretty much just a matter of reviewing new changes for GA compliance and resolving those few nagging details that were there when I had to stop. I'm really sorry; I should've been keeping you in the loop. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Alright, let's take a crack at getting this done tonight. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: After having taken a look at the additions made, I see no issue with them in terms of the GA review (well-written, well-sourced, positively add to the article while not getting sidetracked; quality stuff). Now the only semi-major issues I think remain are the unsourced statement (marked with 'citation needed') in 'Removal from House Committee assignments'. This is easily removable, however, and later transplanted back into the prose when an adequate source is found.

@Curbon7: I've passed the subsections 'Responses within and outside Congress' and 'Up to Camp Fire'. The only reason the former wasn't passed before is because of a standing issue with a completely uncited statement (I also checked the new sources and confirmed they're reliable, do say what we're saying they do, and aren't closely paraphrased from). Having resolved this, that subsection passes. 'Up to Camp Fire' was never checked because I still had a couple statements left to go before my review got put on the back burner; with those statements checked, that's also resolved, so it passes. I'm also passing '2020 congressional campaign', as I've mulled it over, and I think Doles' own social media is an acceptable primary source for this very minor claim that the photograph was taken at the February 29 rally and not, say, some other time and place (it's not like the authenticity of the photograph itself – the actual contentious claim – is in question). I know checking three of these at once seems like rubber stamping, but I allocated all night to do this, and the fact is that I hadn't realized (due largely to how the good quality of the intermediate edits published while I was gone made reviewing them a breeze) how close I was to actually being done. The last point here is the 'Personal life' section because of the dead Vimeo link. I've mulled this one over a lot (too much), and I'm still completely split on what to do, so even though this feels like a cop-out, I think as the lone reviewer of an article of this scale and significance I'm allowed to try for at least one cop-out. I'm going to put this to a binary vote between Curbon7, Starship.paint, and Philip Cross, since you're all good editors who have contributed a lot to this article and for all practical purposes know it as well as I do. I'll summarize my conflicting thoughts on the issue thusly by copy-pasting from a question I asked to another editor but haven't heard back about:

"I'm reviewing for criteria 2c and 2d, and unfortunately, there's a dead video link that's the sole supporter of a statement in the article's 'Personal life' section (I could not find any alternative). I believe it to be permanently dead until somebody comes along and uploads an archive out of the blue (as the video was circulated on Twitter and cited by multiple reliable sources, I'm of the opinion that offline archives exist). Firstly, I know that the source itself is reliable and what it purports to be, as it's referenced directly and even embedded by several reliable sources, including Politico. Secondly, the claims attributed to it are fairly time, e.g. that she was baptized at age 7 to take her First Communion. Thirdly, I recognize that – while WP:LINKROT notes that a dead link "harms verifiability" – it is Wikipedia policy that reliable sources should not be rejected simply because they are difficult to access. However, I wonder if you think this could be an extenuating circumstance given 1) there's technically no concrete evidence an offline archive exists, 2) this falls under the purview of WP:BLP, and 3) the claim isn't absolutely crucial to understanding her personal life." Basically, do we keep this passage in the article or shelf it until such a time as an archive is found for the video? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, RE: the video, I don't think it matters very much since it's a very minor detail, so I'm okay with the removal if no archive exists. Curbon7 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

- I've already raised my concerns, I did try to address them myself also, to the best of my ability. Do I think they are fully addressed to my liking? Not completely. Am I going to stand in the way of the review? No. starship.paint (exalt) 08:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Having not heard from Philip and given your opinion, I erred on the side of caution and removed the statement attributed to the video. Seeing as no edits have been made between the 25th and now and as that was the only concern with 2c and 2d in 'Personal life', I'm going to pass 'Personal life' for 2c and 2d, and consequently pass the review – as of, for posterity, this revision. Given the article's indefinite extended protection, I don't foresee edit warring as an issue for the sake of criteria 5, but this article is very much going to need consistent, quality editorship to remain a GA. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.