Talk:Carol Browner/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Wasted Time R in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy section, "She also became a brief target of fervent anti-"czar" radio and television commentator Glenn Beck following the Van Jones resignation" is "from" missing between "czar" and "radio"?- No (it's a multiple compound adjective), but I added a comma after "Beck" to make it easier to parse.
- Right, right, I totally forgot that it's supposed to do that [the compound adjective]. I wondered whether or not to bring it up, but I decided to take a chance with it, obviously it backfired, so check and thank you for catching my mistake.
- No (it's a multiple compound adjective), but I added a comma after "Beck" to make it easier to parse.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Nomination and confirmation section, please link "Nannygate" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. In the Second four years section, is this correct ---> "Clinton himself later wrote that Browner had accumulated a 'long list[] of important achievements'", meaning the parentheses in Clinton's quote. In the Business career section, "...took place on June 21, 2007 in Riverhead, New York" ---> "...took place on June 21, 2007, in Riverhead, New York", commas after dates, if using MDY.- The Nannygate link is intentional, as there is no article dedicated to the 1993 Nannygate controversy, and Zoë Baird is not a good link for it since it is was broader in scope and affected more people than that. Thus linking to a disambig page is the least bad alternative. I hope to write such an article soon, at which point I'll change this link to it. The "[]" was a clumsy attempt to deal with a hard-to-use context (Clinton made the same assessment of two people, one of which is Browner); I've changed this to a paraphrase. The comma after "2007" has been added.
- Okay [on Nannygate], check on both Clinton quote and comma.
- The Nannygate link is intentional, as there is no article dedicated to the 1993 Nannygate controversy, and Zoë Baird is not a good link for it since it is was broader in scope and affected more people than that. Thus linking to a disambig page is the least bad alternative. I hope to write such an article soon, at which point I'll change this link to it. The "[]" was a clumsy attempt to deal with a hard-to-use context (Clinton made the same assessment of two people, one of which is Browner); I've changed this to a paraphrase. The comma after "2007" has been added.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference 47 is dead. Ref. 58 is missing an accessdate. The "18 U.S. Code § 1913" link has a different url path, you might want to update that.- Ref 47 has been changed to remove the URL (it went, came back, but now seems gone for good again). The accessdate has been added. The underlink has been updated.
- Check.
- Ref 47 has been changed to remove the URL (it went, came back, but now seems gone for good again). The accessdate has been added. The underlink has been updated.
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Who are the authors of File:CarolBrownerCirca1996.jpg and File:CarolBrowner2007.jpeg?
- I've updated both images with more and better information about their source and creators, although there are no specific-person photographer credits available for either. I've also added another image from the EPA era, with as much source information as possible.
- Check on both. I needed to ask, cause if I don't then I get in trouble, you know, but I'm glad you got it.
- I've updated both images with more and better information about their source and creators, although there are no specific-person photographer credits available for either. I've also added another image from the EPA era, with as much source information as possible.
- Who are the authors of File:CarolBrownerCirca1996.jpg and File:CarolBrowner2007.jpeg?
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Not that much to do. If the above queries can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review. My responses to all items are above. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome for it. I do apologize for not getting to the review sooner, I needed a little break from here, but I didn't forget that I had this on hold, so. Anyways, getting back to the seriousness, thank you to Wasted Time R for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't delayed in getting to it at all. Thanks very much for the review and the pass! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome for it. I do apologize for not getting to the review sooner, I needed a little break from here, but I didn't forget that I had this on hold, so. Anyways, getting back to the seriousness, thank you to Wasted Time R for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)