Talk:Jay Obernolte/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I intend to start this review shortly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   No glaring grammar or spelling problems. I made a few minor tweaks for clarity, but otherwise this is ok. Should lose the citations in the lede.

   Article references the "High Desert" and doesn't explain the term. Article references "the fire tax" but doesn't explain what that is. Article references membership in the "Young Eagles" but doesn't explain what that is or why it matters. The article should provide context for these at least briefly so non-Californian readers understand.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Minor quibbles: Citations 2 & 6 are duplicates. The FarSight Studios website is not a reliable source for what their most popular games were. Lede states that FarSight launched 1988, body says 1990.

   The entire Violence Against Public Safety Officers Deterrence Act section is a huge problem. It is almost entirely copied from the San Bernardino Sun website, without quotation marks ([1]). First, this is a copyvio problem, and second, even if it weren't, the lack of quotes presents the writing of the op-ed as though it were fact. I have removed the section and revdel'd the diffs that contained it; it should not be re-added unless properly quoted.

   The California budget section is mostly quotes and what isn't is also either straight copy-vio or so closely paraphrased it's the same thing. Really, really unacceptable. I should fail this right here given that it's the second such section. Instead, I have re-worded and trimmed it.

   In the paragraph about aviation under "personal life", the article states that "He worked with Embraer as a member on its Pilot Advisory Board during the development of the Phenom 300" and provides four citations for this. The first is paywalled and should at least quote a portion that supports this assertion. The second states that he owns a Phenom 300, but fails to mention any advisory board. The third is a membership profile from a local jet group and not a reliable source. The fourth again fails to mention any advisory board. This either needs removed or properly cited. Actually, the rest of the aviation paragraph's claims about his licensing & so on also need to be reliably cited as they presently aren't.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't know that the veterans section is relevant to the scope of the article, unless Obernolte is specifically noted for his work with veterans. The Assembly awards "Veteran of the Year" to someone in every district every year, so this is basically trivia. Same with renaming a stretch of highway, honestly, unless it's part of a broader focus for him on veterans. Should be removed entirely or expanded enough to justify inclusion as within scope.

   The section about minimum wage is basically just a blockquote. The quote should be trimmed, and if possible, the section should include referenced information about actions that Obernolte has taken about the wage increase. If he hasn't, perhaps it could be folded into a general "political views" section along with other opinions.

   The Frontier Communications is another op-ed quote. It provides zero context - what did Frontier do that caused Obernolte to be so disturbed that he had to write an op-ed about it? Did Obernolte take any legislative action about it? Should either be expanded on its own merits or folded into a general "views" section.

   Also applies to the paragraph on his opposition to Xavier Becerra. Again, blockquote. Could be trimmed and folded.

   On the whole the article should be refactored focus on concrete actions that Obernolte has taken (like authoring legislation). Opinions and views without accompanying action should be trimmed and placed in a "political views" section in order to clearly differentiate them. Every politician expresses opinions; it is the point of being a politician. They are essentially trivia unless they were followed by action, or a significant public reaction for some reason.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Although it does not use overtly promotional language, the extensive coverage and quotations of Obernolte's views and op-eds as noted above gives the casual skimmer the impression that he has accomplished quite a bit more than he actually has, by virtue of expanding the table of contents with active-sounding headers. Falls somewhat afoul of NPOV by being puffery, in my opinion.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Meatsgains, this needs a lot of work before it can be considered a Good Article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)