Talk:Rónán Mullen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: fourfound and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD  Not done

   Stray sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs, see WP:Manual of Style (layout)#Paragraphs  Done

   Prose otherwise is reasonably well written.

   Could you expand on this? Thanks--Patchthesock123 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

   Certainly, the lead does not fully summarise his parliamentary career. the sentence "Mullen is a frequent media commentator on social and political topics and is well known for his work on right-to-life issues, human trafficking and immigration, hospice care and religious freedom." is hardly adequate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

   It appears that User:Snappy is reverting your edits to the lead. I have asked them to comment here. This pattern of editing is destabilising the article and I cannot pass it if this is going on. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The three dead links from the site {http://www.oireachtas.ie/} (ref #1, #10, #13) may just be down due to maintenance, please check in a day or so. The parliament site is OK now, I have replaced the other dead link.

   Other references check out, citation neede tags need to addressed, also the clarification and who? tags

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}y} b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   Tagged, licensed and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

   The lead and the stray sentences need addressing still. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, there is a content dispute between Snappy and the nominator. That needs resolution rather than edit warring. I am not listing at this time as the article does not meet WP:GACR criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GAR Comment: Hi, In general I agree with Jezhotwells, though I've added a couple of tags to the article text: it would be better if those who accused the subject of obstructing the bill were named. 2)The phrase "constitutional filter" is never explained. I am not entirely ignorant of politics but couldn't understand it. 3) The list of Mullen advocacy in the first paragraph of the Seanad section needs a reference.

The dead links worked for me, I presuming that it was a temporary website problem and which has now been resolved.

I've gone ahead and expanded the lead, further suggestions are welcome. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, I think all the above are all fixed up. --Patchthesock123 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed that pov rubbish which is a direct copy from the subjects website and is unreferenced by other sources. Snappy (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)