Talk:Joe Biden/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Per Wikipedia:WTA#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid, one should avoid the word "claim" when the speaker refers to his own mindset, which this article does many times. Also, try to avoid words like "supposed."
   • Single sentence paragraphs need to be gotten rid of.
   • The lead could be improved by more fully summarizing the article.
   • Use blockquote for the currently-italicized quotations.
   • In general, the use of quotations can probably be lowered - many are not necessary.
   • Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section.
   • Some paragraphs are possibly too big, like the first in the 2008 section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • So close, but the 1988 section has unsourced information in the first paragraph. Looks good otherwise.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The information on Joe Biden's replacement is probably not necessary, or at least does not need to be covered in such detail.
   • The Vice Presidential section in general should be updated to include more focused information on Joe Biden.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • It's close, but first off, the "claim" stuff should be fixed.
   • Furthermore, the 1988 section overall does not seem to take a NPOV. It takes a bit of a negative tone.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • There does seem to be more vandalism lately, but as far as I can tell, no actual edit wars. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: On hold for two weeks.

- Minute Lake (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've take care of all instances of "claim" and "supposed". Still working toward GA quality... —  X  S  G  00:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess no one read what I wrote above. This nom was insincere, from a new account/troll/sock. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it but made the decision on my own that if I could do something to improve the article toward GA quality, I should. Whether the article's GA nomintation was sincere or no, I believe the article is better for my efforts. And maybe when the article gets a sincere GA nod, no one will be able to find the above faults in it. —  X  S  G  06:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI/FWIW this was the GA nominator. Gnangarra 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate what is stated above, this article was nominated by a sock puppet. It is not a valid nomination. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The bad faith nom notwithstanding, the review is still open. A lot of article work has been done, and I think the above concerns have been responded to, and the article is a plausible contender for GA. I've pinged Minute Lake to see if the re-review can be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[13:17, September 17, 2008 Minute Lake: I am failing because the time has passed, but a new nomination may be warranted (or a reassessment, I don't have time.)]

The article has a whole lot of flaws. It is difficult to correct it with the election coming up. Take out a flaw and someone thinks you are trying to cover up for the man or trying to smear the man. 903M (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)