Talk:Paul Noel Fiorino/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I'll review this. 01:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Main concern 1: The short length of the article trigged some alarm bells for me. After doing a very basic search, I realized there are plenty of sources available the nominator could have used to broaden the article. Sources not used include: [1] [2][3][4][5][6]. As of now, the article is clearly not broad enough for GA standards.

Main concern 2: I'm seeing way too many questionable sources used. This is a BLP which requires high-quality sources. Questionable sources include:

• Ballot Access News: while authored by Richard Winger, you can not use a WP:SPS in a BLP
• A Tweet by some random person
• northernexpress.com: Using an opinion article for facts
• Vote Smart (cited 4 times): Per prior consensus, Vote Smart is fine for things like the subject's voting record or whatnot, but this article is not using the source in such a way
• Independent Political Report (cited 2 times): This source was once part of the project's large scale clean-up efforts since it was deemed unreliable [7]

Other concerns:

• " however, he was the first independent candidate to ever appear on a Colorado gubernatorial ballot." --that's WP:OR using a primary source
• The infobox notes he has two children which is not sourced in the article
• The infobox notes he is the President of the Golden Triangle Museum District which is not sourced in the article

All-in-all, I believe this article qualifies for a WP:QF since it's a long way from meeting multiple GA criteria. Good luck on improving the article in the future! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

On a post-review note, while it appears this review was done in haste, I actually had this article saved on my computer for sometime, debating if I should review it or not. Rest assured, I spent the necessary amount of time examining it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.