Talk:Sean Patrick Maloney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2013 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • You may want to look over the IP edits made since your last round of expansion and cleanup. It appears there has been some information removed, some unsourced information added, and at least one section header changed.

   • Thanks, fixed.

   • Is the lengthy list of external links really necessary? It seems like a bit of overkill for what is in reality a fairly short article. Or perhaps there is information from these links that could be added, and some of them could be turned into references?

   • I'm not sure what you mean, it seems pretty standard to me.

   • It's normal to have 16 external links for a politician article, including four different biographies, plus three congressional profiles, three links to financial information and two different links to his voting record? It seems like a lot of duplication. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

   • I'm sorry, I've never encountered an issue like this, could you take the lead? - I don't want to accidentally remove useful info.

   • Well, things like the Ballotpedia article: it's a wiki, and all of the information appears to be contained either in the WP article or in other external links. Or the RollCall congressional profile, which is all either super basic info or really tangential, and requires users to subscribe for more detailed info. I still think it's overkill to have this many external links, and per WP:EL: "Some external links are welcome...but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Dana boomer (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

   • Okay, I've widdled it down a bit to where I'm comfortable, but I've seen GA's with far more EL.

   • "In 2006 he ran for the Democratic primary" for -> in?

   • Fixed.

   • Could we add another sentence to the lead summarizing his tenure in the House so far? The lead seems lacking on this topic.

   • Added.

   • It looks like you added a sentence on his tenure with Clinton (which is good), but nothing about his tenure in the House? Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

   • "Maloney was a senior attorney at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP," When?

   • I'm sorry, but I really can't seem to turn anything up on the matter. I'll assume because he wasn't so notable at the time, it wasn't really documented.

   • " In March 2011 he joined the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe as a partner." Does he still serve in this capacity, or did he leave when he was elected to the House?

   • I went on the site, and the only thing I could find is their notice of his hiring, and turning up no web searches on the matter, I assume he still "works" there.

   • "Clinton credited Maloney with helping to create jobs and grow the economy during his administration, saying in a statement: "Sean worked closely with me in the White House to create jobs, grow our economy and balance the budget."" This sentence is repetitive, given that exactly the same words are used for the paraphrase and the quote.

   • Fixed.

   • ""this day may not be the outcome we hope," Is the quoted correctly? Because it's grammatically wonky.

   • It is.

   • "Governor Paterson's" Link? I know Paterson is linked in the lead, but so is Spitzer, and you relink Spitzer in this section.

   • Fixed.

   • "Maloney supported the No Budget, No Pay Act." The Act article says it was a 2012 bill...is this the wrong link?

   • Cut.

   • No, it's still in there.

   • After looking at it again, in the news article it says it was passed in 2013.

   • Is No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 maybe the correct link, rather than what is currently there? Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

   • Thanks, fixed it.

   • "Maloney has introduced four pieces of legislation in the 113th Congress:" Are there updates on any of these bills? Has he cosponsored any bills?

   • Cut.

   • Why cut this? It seems like quite useful/interesting information in an article about a serving politician. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

   • With all the info that IP put in, I just felt it was better to start fresh, don't worry I'll add more.

   • Is this info going to be added back in? Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

   • I've added in more info on legislation he's supported which has received considerable converge.

   • What about the other bills that he has sponsored? From what I can see, he's been a co-sponsor on a bunch of bills, so I wouldn't list those, but he's only been the sponsor on four (? I think ?). I would think at this level, the other three could be listed, even if details aren't given like they are for the veteran's red tape bill. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

   • I've added them into the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • "Maloney is New York's first openly gay member of Congress." Source?

   • Fixed.

   • Source for legislation introduction in Tenure section? This appears to have been added in the recent round of IP edits.

   • Fixed.

   • Cutting the information does fix this point, but as I said above, I'm not sure it should have been cut.

   • I've added more notable information.

   • Publisher for Ref #15 is not Internet Archive, that's merely the archiving service. The publisher appears to be the state of New York or some variation thereof.
   • What makes ref #19 (GayAgenda) a reliable source?

   • Changed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • There are a few spots that could stand to be expanded a bit; see the specific comments in the prose section above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Does anyone have any criticism of this guy? All of the quotes from others in this article are favorable. Do we have any statistics: approval ratings, etc.?

   • Added some.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Please look past the recent disrutive edits, the user has been blocked for 24hr, lets try to finish before it's over.

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:

   Some comments above, a little bit in each category. I don't think it will take much work to get this article up to GA, so placing the review on hold until the above can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim that Maloney is a moderate in the intro requires a source for WP:verifiability.CFredkin (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)