Talk:Helen McEntee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Andrewdwilliams (talk · contribs) 18:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Starting review

Thanks This is Paul for the Good Article Nomination. This is my first GAN review, so bear with me a bit, but from a brief read this article does not hit on any of the immediate failures. The article is well written and well sourced, which is a very positive sign. I only have a couple small issues with the article as of present, but it so far appears to quite comfortably meet criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the good article criteria. It also meets 6 by virtue of there being no appropriate available images for the article. I will have to check 2 in more depth, but beyond that the initial review is a promising one. I hope to have an update on the review this weekend. --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, great to have you on board. I look forward to the review, and will do my best to address any issues you find. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Review

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.	The article is very well written, with consistently precise and clear sentence structure and use of standard spellings throughout. Not able to see any improvements.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with the lead section guidelines and the layout guidelines. Having read through, no 'words to watch' leaped out at me. List incorporation and fiction guidelines not applicable.
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.	Meets this.
	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).	Having looked at the sources in the references section, and read through a number of those that source direct quotations, I am confident that they are all from reliable sources, and so pass this criteria.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Having read through the sources and the body of the text, I am confident that all sources are individually verifiable, and that no conclusions are reached in the text that are not reached in the sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Have run it through Copyvio and no violations have taken place. Also, no images have been falsely used.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article is all within the scope of Helen McEntee's life, focusing on the main aspects in a similar way to other political biography articles.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Does not go into unnecessary detail and remains focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Approaches it from a perspective as unbiased as possible. Includes criticism where available, such as the SF councillor's comment in 2013. One point to look out for in the future with this article may be to provide more criticism of McEntee's actions or of bodies like the youth mental health task force.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring evident in at least the last six months or so.
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.	Not applicable.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not applicable.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, a well written and comprehensive article. No real scope for immediate improvement against the criteria. Well done, This is Paul. I will let you offer a response to this review, which was over rather quickly, before I make the changes to make it GA status.

@Andrewdwilliams: Thanks for the review, it's great to know I've done a reasonably good job with this. In terms of criticism, apart from the SF stuff, she hasn't attracted a great deal up until now, but the pressures of being a minister will almost certainly change that. I'll keep this up to date anyway and add anything new that comes along, and there's a load of references to archive as well. Thanks again for your help, and I look forward to you maybe reviewing some of my future GA nominations. This is Paul (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Not your first GA I see, but the more the merrier. --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)