Talk:Newt Gingrich/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A good article is |
---|
Whatever method you use for formatting, providing full citations is strongly preferred to providing only a bare URL, which appears to the reader as either this: [1] or as http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm When trying to find sources of information for an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, newspapers, journals, interviews, etc. Consider using a local library for researching information in printed resources. To find online resources, use websites such as news aggregators and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for a source, the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles. |
Reviewers initial notes
[edit]I base nearly all similar articles I contribute to on the GA article Mitt Romney. I believe it will be fit this review to base his notes on the similar article already listed as GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Review
[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. |
**This looks like trivia so I removed it. * In the section "Goverment shut down" that should read "hard line" not hardline. **Fixed, but I used "hard-line" since it's an adjective. *in the Documentary section the says to "A Nation Like No Other,America at Risk". Please add a space between the comma and the word American. *In the same Documentary section, a space is needed between "of" and "American exceptionalism". **These appear to have been fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
* The lead has a great deal of inline citations. For GA consideration it should not. All information should be in the body of the work. Similar GA articles comply to this standard.[2] ** OK, I removed some of the excessive details and citations. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) * The "Pre-speakership congressional activities" section is divided into several mini subsections. They are too short and need condensing. * Post-speakership section needs condensing as well. * Same with the "Personal life" section ** I condensed these sections. —Designate (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC) | |
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. |
* The line is out of place in the lead and sticks out like a sore thumb. It has no source and is not in the body of the article. **I worked it into the lead and the article. The second sentence is a little too general to put in the article verbatim, but I think it's supported by the section on his tenure. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | |
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). |
* The first section: Early Life, has a [citation needed] tag. Do not remove the tag unless the claim is referenced or removed. GA articles cannot be listed with tags. ** Someone removed the statement. *The claim to reference 135 is not substantiated by the reference.
* Reference 134 is a collection of Student opinions. This cannot be used, as the reference is not the source, the students are and how are they reliable sources? It's "Man on the street", not expert opinion ** Found a different source. * This statement has to go along with the reference:Gingrich has authored or co-authored 16 non-fiction books since 1982, several of them bestsellers. In recent years, his works have had a more large scale policy focus, including Winning the Future, and the most recent, To Save America.[144] That's a book search listing all his books, it is not a published third party, secondary source. That's called Original Research ** Reworked. * Reference 124 is a blog. It cannot be used as a reference ** It's an author's opinion published by a mainstream source WP:RSOPINION, so if it's presented that way it's not objectionable. It's self-published blogs that are a problem. I added the author's name. —Designate (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | There is a citation needed tag. Reference the statement.
* See point 4 above *The "Alternative history" section in books is false. That should be under "fiction" as those are all novels. **The first line of the alternate history article defines it as a genre of fiction. —Designate (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) *Comment It is a sub-category or sub-genre and therefore should have a title to reflect starting with fiction. To do otherwise is not supported by the first category and seems misleading.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Probably a little too broad here and there but that's a focus issue. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | There is a good deal of unnecessary details in the article.
*Gingrich is a fan of the Swedish pop group ABBA, and uses their song "Dancing Queen" as his cell phone ringtone.[133] **I removed some of the trivia. I think the article is a comfortable length overall. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This has to go: "Gingrich stands for his beliefs and does not shy away from positions that could be considered controversial". POV and OR
**Done. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) * All the small sections are giving undue weight. They need to be incorporated | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
* The image of Clinton: File:Clinton1997SOTU.jpg[3] does not have proper sourcing and cannot jusify the Public Domain claim from the information provided with the description only. It should probably have the full boiler plate if not at least the exact information that would be found on it. I would just add it and fill the decsription that's there, the author information with the link provided as the source and full date information. The link should have most of the information or easily searchable. It should resemble this image from the same source:File:Clinton_health_care_elderly.jpg[4]. ** Fixed. Designate (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC) * The same is true with this one:File:SpeakerGingrich.jpg[5]. This last image must be removed before GA can be listed. It has NO context in the prose and only serves as decoration. ** Are you sure? It seems weird to leave it out. Ronald Reagan has his portrait included, and that's a FA. Same with George H.W. Bush which is a GA. I think the GA criterion is "relevant to the topic [Gingrich]", not necessarily "context in the prose". Designate (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There is no context to use the portrait. There is consensus and presedence. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Very good article. Lots of hard work. |
I have not ended the review as of yet and originally thought this would be a pretty easy pass with a few fixes here and there...but I am discovering some referencing issues. If that becomes a problem guys I will declining whether than holding if there are too many.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
GA listing hold begins today
[edit]I have not gone through every reference but have noticed it has some issues. Probably not so much that it can't be listed if, at the very least, the ones marked are corrected as well as the rest of the fixes mentioned are implemented. If all the review notes are corrected in 7 days from today, 2:46 am Pacific Standard time I am prepared to list the Article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)