Talk:Betty Hall/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I will be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Only a few minor clarity issues, so I've fixed them myself.
 * I also have a few style notes, though I'm not going to count them against the criterion: First, the word "however" is used to start several sentences, but it doesn't serve any purpose. Second, Hall is referred to by name a considerable number of times; greater use of the word "she" might improve readability in areas where the subject is unambiguous.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead: The lead is a bit too long for an article of this length. It needs to be made more concise by trimming details.
 * Layout:
 * There are several paragraphs that only have one or two sentences (MOS:PARA).
 * Is there a significant dividing line between "Early political career" and "Later political career"? This division seems arbitrary, and I wonder if her four periods of consecutive time in office would be better dividing lines.
 * The section "Presidential politics" feels out of place compared to the otherwise chronological nature of the section, though I don't know whether dividing it up into the timeline would be an improvement.
 * The heading "Impeachment of George W. Bush" implies an actual impeachment. This needs to be renamed.
 * Words to watch: Only minor issues, I've fixed them myself.
 * Fiction: N/A
 * Lists: N/A
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Article has a standard reference list.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * All sources appear to be reliable. Most are local newspapers or government records. The nominator's clipping of relevant articles on newspapers.com to make them accessible is much appreciated.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * All claims are cited, and spot check shows that content reflects sources.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Passed Earwig search.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Covers political career, early life, and major political stances
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Excessive detail throughout coverage of political career. Several paragraphs go into unnecessary detail on elections, listing candidates, vote counts, and vote margins. These should be reduced to describe the outcome in simple terms and give the reader a general sense of by how much Hall won or lost.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * All political elements and viewpoints are described with NPOV.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No recent edits.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Three copyrighted images, all critical to the topic with fair use justifications. Captions sufficiently describe context when appropriate.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are all relevant and provide appropriate context with captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is very close to meeting the GA criteria. All it needs is a little work on the section headings and some trimming in the lead and body. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so these changes can be made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has now been improved to meet the GA criteria in their entirety. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Break

 * , Thanks for your review! I'll begin to revise the parts you mentioned. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One other suggestion I forgot to make. If you think it's worth maintaining the detailed election information, the standard is to use an electoral history section, similar to this one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, in my opinion. I find those are often unwieldy, and think we should reserve those only for the actual election articles, as they often take up too much room and stick out poorly. Curbon7 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't love them, but it's one way to preserve the level of detail without making the body itself unwieldy. But it makes no difference to me as long as criterion 3 is met. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I adjusted the beginning of the Later career section to start at 1986 (prior, I had just picked 1990 as a fairly arbitrary date). I think this makes the most sense, as this is when she switched parties and it connects her third tenure into one section instead of splitting it in half. Let me know if you disagree and/or think another way may be better. I've also cut out the bulk of the excessive election details. Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also cut the lede down significantly, and folded all the one sentence paragraphs and the majority of the two sentence paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)