Talk:Scott Smith (Arizona politician)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

A good article has the following attributes: 

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

I think this article needed a good copy-edit first, but instead of waiting, I was bold and made changes myself. Feel free to reverse those you disagree with, but please address the following:

  • I probably should create a category because any top law school of a state surely has notable alumni who have served in congress and such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of odd to go from childhood to adult life, and then back to childhood so quickly: "Smith grew up in the Mesa area and raised his children there as well.[4] His family moved to Mesa in 1967...."
  • I think a verb or something is missing here, as it is unclear: "In the runoff election, Walters endorsed Smith and Smith won by a 5100–2590 margin in her...."
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, in-line citations are only included in leads if the text is controversial. Please fix.
  • Controversial does not mean likely to be argued about, but rather facts that are not common knowledge. On WP, one can either fully cite a lead or leave it uncited with all contained facts cited in the body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LEAD, lead should include something about his tenure as mayor in order to incorporate all sub-headings in the lead (plus, this would help make the lead a little bit longer).
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.
Okay
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Why go into so much detail about the history of Mesa, AZ in the Mayor section?
  • I am personally very surprised at Mesa's ordinal ranking by population (38th) among U.S. cities. I felt it necessary to add context to Mesa's ranking for the average reader who is not from Arizona. Although people from Arizona might not be surprised, this fact is very surprising to most. Mesa is ranked above many "Major League" cities. People will want to know why even in the mayor bio, where rank of the city matters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added his work experience. I don't think every person who is WP:N enought to have an article on wikipedia includes all of their community service in their WP bio. I generally only do this when I badly need filler.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Good
  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
Bummer to have no pics, but that won't hold up GA. Consider putting a pic request on the talk page.

Conclusion[edit]

In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one week until the above issues are resolved. Only a few things to fix and it should pass easily. Please help me as a reviewer by addressing each bulleted item directly underneath it, if at least to only acknowledge you took care of it or to explain why you disagree. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the issues. I'm passing to GA status. Congrats! --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Smith_(Arizona_politician)/GA1&oldid=1142346757"