 | Title 42 appointment has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 19, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Title 42 appointment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 March 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Title 42 appointment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Will review. — Wug·a·po·des 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Checklist
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused (see summary style):
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
editIf the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.
- The block quote text includes "without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended" despite that not being present in the USC [1]. If the block quote is meant to be the original text of the law, it should be made clear because the first sentence makes it seem like the text is a copy of the USC. If it is meant to be the USC, the following sentence should be changed to reflect the quote.
- The lead says that the EPA was able to start Title 42 appointments in 2005, but the article body says this began in 2006 before later saying this ability was extended to them in 2005; which is the correct date or can more context be provided on why the two different numbers appear?
- Per WP:ELPOINTS it's usually best to avoid external links in the body of an article. There are a number here, and it may be worth considering their value to readers.
- I think the article might read better if the order of sections was reversed.
- @Wugapodes: Thanks for the review! I've corrected 1 and 2. The external links are part of the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations templates, which are routinely used inline. For this type of article, I tend to believe that it is best to describe the topic before the historical information, which is why the sections are in the order they are. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Results
editOn Hold for 7 days. — Wug·a·po·des 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Listed — Wug·a·po·des 22:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)