Talk:Don Marostica/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: fixed one disambiguation.diff

Link rot: fixed eight and tagged nineteen dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS.diff

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In 1975, he later earned a master's degree from the University of Northern Colorado[5] in secondary school administration. Poor grammar  Done

   These appear to be the same comment. Fixed -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica has served on over 60 board and commissions in the Loveland area,... Do you mean borads plural?  Done

   Yes; fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   For the 2009 legislative session, Marostica was the lone Republican supporter to eliminate the 6% spending cap. What does this mean? Remember to explain things for your readership.  Done

   Another editor must have added that into the section; it's the Arveschoug-Bird limit addressed in the "2009 legislative session" section. The problematic (and unsourced) sentence you cite has been removed. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Considered by observers on both the left and the right to be a moderate Republican, having supported Colorado's 2005 Referendum C.[20], Marostica faced a challenge from Kevan McNaught in the 2006 Republican primary for the 51st House district. What is Refeendum C, explain its significance.  Done

   Done, and moved that section around a bit. -- Sethant (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   ...and a bill allowed individuals to administer bank accounts on behalf of businesses, governments, or not-for-profits with proper documentation poor grammar  Done

   That, among mention of some other minor bills, has been cut. -- Sethant (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica was unsuccessful at passing what he described as his "most important" proposal... "at passing"?  Done

   Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   In the 2008 session of the Colorado General Assembly, Marostica sits on the House Health and Human Services Committee, the House Transportation and Energy Committee, and the Joint Capital Development Committee. "sits"? This was two years ago.  Done

   Correct, should be "sat." Fixed. -- 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica announced his bid for re-election to the legislature in January 2008,[49] and faces Democrat Kenneth Bennett. 2faces" wrong tense.  Done

   Fixed. - Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica outraised Bennett roughly five to one, bringing in over $80,000 by mid-October, of which he contributed $10,000 personally. "outraided"?  Done

   No, "outraised" is correct -- Marostica raised more money. I've reworked that sentence to hopefully be a little clearer. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   During hearings before the beginning of the legislative session, Marostica supported withdrawing all state funding from public research universities,[56] a measure met with resistance from university leaders, but which gained traction after poor economic forecasts. "gained traction"? Please rewrite in plain english  Done

   Rephrased. Hopefully that's clearer. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica also help lead an effort to allow the state to tap the financial reserves of Pinnacol Assurance, a quasi-governmental worker's compensation insurer, in order to balance the state budget. "also help lead"?  Done

   Changed to "also helped to." -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   ... to allow special improvement districts to be created within special districts please explain what this is about  Done

   You know, I'm not totally sure myself. That's what the original news article said. :) I've cut that clause. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Additionally, Marostica sponsored legislation to allow the Colorado Department Education to receive funding to fund online education missing "of"?  Done

   Yes; rephrased the sentence anyway, it was a bit clunky. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica introduced legislation to expand the definition of cigar bars except from Colorado's indoor smoking ban "cigar bars except from Colorado's indoor smoking ban"?  Done

   Should be "exempt." Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   ''He faced pressure from prominent Republicans, including Independence Institute President Jon Caldara and former state treasurer Mark Hillman, to drop his support, whom Marostica characterized as "has-beens" and "losers," earning his additional criticism from House Republicans; Please rewrite in plain english  Done

   Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Marostica defended the state's ability to offer tax incentives to companies in late 2009 in the face of legislators proposing to balance the state's budget by eliminating tax credits and enterprise zones,[100][101][102] although supporting limited cuts to such programs proposed in Governor Ritter's 2010-2011 budget.[103] Please rewrite in plain english  Done

   Improved, I hope. -- Sethant (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   and pushing to expedite the permitting process for oil and gas operations Please rewrite in plain english  Done

   Improved, I hope. -- Sethant (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   Overall; This is very poorly written, with a tendency to use shorthand terms. Remember your reader may not be familiar with American political terms. The grammar is poor to say the least, and the clarity is low. Please enlist the aid of a copy-editor to get this into shape.

   I'll do another pass through for these sorts of things in the next couple of days. -- Sethant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I've tried to tighten up the article, streamlining the legislative portions in particular. -- Sethant (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I think it meets the "reasonably well written" criterion now, though as always the prose could be improved further. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Nineteen dead links as noted above  Done

   Accessible references are RS and support the statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is somewhat unbalanced focussing on the most recent three years of the subject's career in intricate detail, with a cursory summary of the rest of the subject's life. There is very little here to justify an article on a minor state politician who spent two and a half years in office. What is really noteworthy about the subject?

   The level of prominence of the subject isn't one of the GA criteria, as a form state legislator, Marostica clearly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Because the bulk of Marostica's public career (and verifiable information about Marostica's life) has come in the past few years, there is bound to be some imbalance that can't be resolved. I'm not sure what, beyond the sort of editing I've done, can be done to address this, although I'm open to suggestions. -- Sethant (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I understand. I note that only one other article links to this, you may wish to look at placing judicious wikilinks in other articles. (Not a GA requirement!)

   Added a couple more incoming links, at least enough to get it above the "orphan" threshold. :) -- Sethant (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Infobox image needs a caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is some way away from Good Article standard. I shall place it on hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Just the remaining dead links and the infobox caption now, I think. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   I believe I've fixed all of the dead links possible, and removed those that can't be fixed. As far as the infobox caption, my impression, based on the precedent in featured articles on political figures with standard infoboxes (Barack Obama, Terry Sanford, Nikita Khrushchev, etc.) and Wikipedia's policy on captions, this particular image doesn't need to be captioned. -- Sethant (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I hadn't noticed that detail before. I am now happy to pass this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)