Talk:Julia Gillard/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

---

After a read through of this article I have decided that it has a long way to go to become a good article. Too long to hold. It reads like it has been put together piecemeal as these high profile politician ones tend to do and needs someone to give it a good copyedit for prose and flow. Too many sentences starting with, "In this date", "On that date", "Gillard this", "Gillard that". The organistaion needs to be improved also with sections either expanded or combined and a more logical section hierarchy.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Too many one sentence paragraphs and short sections. Lead is far too short for an article this size. The Politics section should probably be renamed to Early Politics or something similar. The sections Opposition, Prime Minister etc are also covered by politics. Irrelevant and poorly worded sentences like In the aftermath of the Labor loss at the October 2004 election, it was speculated that Gillard might challenge Jenny Macklin for the deputy leadership, but she did not do so. The structure and flow of sentences is poor in places. For example the Asylum seekers section reads like a newsreel. It doesn't need a to be a day by day account. Similarly with Climate change. Ungrammatical sentences As well as being the first woman and the first who has never been married, Gillard is the first Prime Minister since Billy Hughes (1915–1923) to have been born overseas. Why so many cites on Both major party leaders sought to form a minority government? The sections under Prime Minister and Political positions could use rejigging, Domestic policies and Foreign affairs are political positions. Other articles about leaders that I looked at don't seem to use political positions as a header, instead preferring simply foreign and domestic policy. Too many sub headings under Political positions.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Most sentences are cited to references. One citation tag and one uncited statement: Gillard had been spoken of as a potential future leader of the party for some years but, until 2005, she stayed out of leadership contests. Would expect a book or two and maybe some academic reports, but that is not necessary to get GA status.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Shadow minister for Health: 2003–06 section is more about leadership speculation. Why was the quote chosen in foreign affairs? It doesn't seem particularly important in the context of the section to take up one third. Bit overkill with the pictures in Asylum seekers. A decision needs to be made about the short sections, either combine them or expand them. Didn't check references at this time as there are too many other issues that need to be worked on first.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Scanning the talk page it seems there are some lively discussions from both sides of the fence. Nothing jumped out at me (apart from the length of and pictures in asylum seekers). To examine this in any depth would take too long and there are many other issues with the article that need to be dealt with first.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Surprisingly stable.

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):

   Don't like the two images in asylum seekers as mentioned above.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry too much work to be done at this stage.