Talk:Ann Romney/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TeacherA (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I did not use the correct form, which I will remedy here.

Looking at the deletion log (JohnCD 26 June 2010), this page has already been done and deleted so it has received 2 GA reviews. This is the third.

There are many problems. This article states the notability is by being the wife. Notability is not inherited. You may argue that notability is being First Lady but the first sentence of the article does not state this. It is only until later. This is a glaring example of the editors trying to write this good article in good faith but falling short. With hard work, this can be fixed. Good luck.

Reviewer: TeacherA (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is needs improvement. Some people use the educational background as a framework to start.  This could be done by mentioning the schools attended and degrees.  Having dating information leads one to believe that her notability is just from being the wife.  This doesn't mean that dating information should be removed, just rewritten with better prose.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Very heavy reliance on the Boston Globe. Should be fixed as much as possible, if it is possible.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The First Lady section is the key to her notability. If this section is written like a good article, then half the battle is won.  So focus on major revamping of this section.

.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The 2008 campaign should mention her role. It is too focused on Planned Parenthood and being mixed.  Perhaps news articles should be combed to find her role described better.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:


 * 1) 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):
 * Images are very, very difficult to get. However, having two with her standing by her husband is duplication.  Are there other images of her?  How about the gubernatorial portrait that is mentioned?

).#Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I believe that the core of the article is better, but some work is needed to really bring this up to GA standards. TeacherA (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)