Talk:Alexis Herman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) 12:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Did some minor c/e and added a few wikilinks. GMG^talk 12:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   If possible, we really should look to replacing the Business Wire press release currently used four times. Press releases should generally be avoided on any article, and specifically on BLPs, but it shouldn't be all that hard to do. The first use is a double citation, so it can just be removed. The second, it didn't take very long to find this which replaces it, and this for the bit about having honorary doctorates. Now, neither of those are really excellent sources, but at least we can say they've been looked over, at least in passing, by someone not affiliated with her or with Coca Cola, and who presumably would have taken out anything outlandishly wrong. GMG^talk 12:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

   I would probably try to replace the Bloomberg source also, which also shouldn't take more than a few minutes of searching. But there has been some doubts raised about its reliability overall.

   Some citations are missing information, #43 is missing author, #57 is missing author, so is #5, also #45 (they're at the bottom of the article). Source #58 needs to be de-shouted, as does external link #4. Source #53 is missing a title. GMG^talk 12:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done except for #5 as I do not see an author listed. Knope7 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   Is there a reason the ref for the last sentence, first paragraph of early life is hidden? This needs to be covered by a citation either way or removed. BLP and whatnot. GMG^talk 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I generally hide consecutive sources to avoid citekill. I have unhidden that citation. Good catch! Knope7 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Looks like all of the verbatim text picked up by the COPYVIO detector is just lengthy names of titles and organizations, or pretty exceedingly mundane passages. GMG^talk 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   helping corporations develop training programs I...hmm...it might be helpful if we could find a source that explains this better. It doesn't really provide readers with much information as to how this experience may have played into her biography when we're just mentioning nondescript training programs. GMG^talk 12:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)ons,

I found a few sources. All give slightly different descriptions, all having something to do with helping corporations with some sort of management issues. I added two more sources and tried to be a little more descriptive. I am definitely open to further suggestions. Knope7 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Ronald Brown's death is a little underwhelming. The source seems to mention it mainly because it played a role in strengthening her ties to Clinton, so maybe we should too in order to better place the event in the larger context. GMG^talk 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I added another sentence. Knope7 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

1. At the time of Herman's tenure... these two sentences are...getting a little off topic. The Mustard source manages to tie it back to Herman structurally (She oversaw 17,000...) so that it's not just a factoid about the DOL. So we need to tweak these to that they're about her, otherwise, readers can just read the main article for the DOL if they want to learn more about the DOL. GMG^talk 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I see your point about tying the size and scope of DOL to Herman. I tried to tweak the language to make the relevance more clear. Please let me know if you think I should go further. Knope7 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Herman's role in resolving the strike raised her public profile. It's not totally clear how this adds information above and beyond She earned praise from her peers. Maybe add a bit of context for why this was important, per the source, because it positioned her to pursue these other policy goals. GMG^talk 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I adjusted the end of the paragraph, but I tried to be restrained because having political capital is more subjective than having a high profile. I also see earning praise from peers and having a high profile as two different things. The former is receiving positive attention while the latter is receiving attention of any kind. Knope7 (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   The bit about Clinton being at her wedding feels a bit like WP:TRIVIA/name dropping. That's find for Ebony as a popular magazine, but it doesn't really contribute to a lasting encyclopedic understanding of the subject. GMG^talk 12:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the most important detail, but I think it adds a little color to mention the President was there, while he was still in office, unless it would just be presumed that he would go to a cabinet member's wedding. The Washington Post mentioned it too. Jet Magazine said Clinton read a bible verse. That's my case for keeping it, but if you feel strongly I can remove it. Knope7 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

1. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Too easy. All US-GOV. GMG^talk 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Added sister link to Commons cat. GMG^talk 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Notes

I intend to continue addressing the suggestions above. Non-Wikipedia life has been busy this week. I hope to have more time in the coming days. Thanks for your patience. Knope7 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Just lemme know when you get the time. GMG^talk 10:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Knope7, just trying to follow up with this as its been more than a month now. If you need anything on my end feel free to let me know. GMG^talk 14:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @GreenMeansGo:. Things were more hectic than anticipated. I will be getting back to this now. Knope7 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that I addressed all of the comments. If there are any outstanding issues or issues that need addressed further I would be happy to do so. Knope7 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Knope7. Sorry that I didn't see your last reply until someone pointed it out to me on my talk page. I've gone over this today and yesterday. Probably sleep on it one more time and do one last review. But it looks pretty good and I don't see any major issues that have jumped out at me. GMG^talk 19:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)