Talk:Cindy McCain/GA1

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

Hey, I'm Hunter. I did a thorough read through and frankly, this article is in fantastic shape. It's obvious it's been worked on and scrutinized for a while. As it is, I only have two suggestions (one of which is really minor), then it'll be ready for GA status...

Intro:
 * The first four sentences in the second paragraph start with "She". This isn't a huge objection, but could you reword so it's not so redundant?

Role in 2000 presidential campaign:
 * Should there be a mention here about how during this campaign, the Bush campaign allegedly circulated leaflets describing Cindy McCain as a drug addict? This is mentioned at this Time magazine source, the third paragraph under "The Crucible." It's also mentioned on pg. 3 of the book Third Term, and you can see the reference by clicking the "Look Inside" option on the Amazon.com page. You already address the fact that McCain was offended by some of the smear tactics, but since this one was specifically regarding her, I thought it might bear inclusion.

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the review. I have addressed both your suggestions in the article.  The Cindy 2000 bit was already included in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 article, but I agree, it belonged here as well.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job with this. It's refreshing to see a GAN that is so ready for GA right of the bat.

A good article is:
 * 1) Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
 * 4) Neutral: Yes
 * 5) Stable: Yes
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)