Talk:Cory Booker/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 00:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything I still had trouble with is in bold.

To go over the criteria:

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The name "Booker" comes up way to often, particularly in the Early life, education, and career. Some sentences give do not flow (For ex: "On May 14 Booker lost winning 47% to James' 53%."), and there are a few (for lack of a better term) redundant sentences. (For ex: "Booker assumed office as Mayor of Newark on July 1, 2006, the third consecutive black Mayor since 1970." As in, all mayors in the last 45 years have been black, or only the last three since 1970...?) It just needs a little touching up. GAs are not perfect.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are good enough for me.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think it gives unneeded weight to the Other activities section. Giving a greater amount of writing to his support of Obama than to his 2014 senate run (granted, that is just starting up) seemed a little off to me.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Again, fix problems with the weight, and it will be A-OK!

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here.

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):

   Appears to all be in order.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just barely does not meet criteria. A few minor changes will get it there. Please leave a message at my talk page when you are finished with the edits. If they are not done within 7 days, I will consider the article withdrawn. PrairieKid (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think it makes it. The examples I gave as to the flow and redundant sentences were not the only instances. I would suggest skimming the article through- if you ever need to stop and reread a passage or sentence, see if it is possible to simply rewrite the passage instead. Further, the weight is still off-balance. It is better. Don't worry- I'm giving you a few days to work on it. Take your time to ensure it is at the quality it can be at. PrairieKid (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK- I'd say that does it. Cory Booker- welcome to the GA list. PrairieKid (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)