Talk:Geraldine Ferraro/GA1

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

Hi! I'm going to be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Early life and education it says "Geraldine had an older brother, and two other older brothers who died in infancy and at the age of three." which is somewhat unwieldy and confusing. Perhaps try something like "Geraldine had three older brothers, two of whom died early in life - one in infancy and one at age three."
 * Changed, to your suggested language which reads well.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #41 (Voting Record) deadlinks.
 * Fixed the url (it's ref #40 now).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * The lead image has a deprecated license template.
 * The Women's History Month photo with Clinton is missing author information.
 * I fixed the license on the first one. Regarding the second one, I double-checked the Pelosi congressional web page it appears on, but there are no photo credits.  I changed the 'author' parameter to 'unknown' in the image template, so that warning doesn't come out, but otherwise I'm not sure what I can do on this.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very nice article. I have just a few comments about prose, references and images, so I am placing the article on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing the review! I've responded to all the issues above.  I also moved a footnote out of the lead section, where its placement was bothering me.  Let me know if you have any further issues or concerns.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing the review! I've responded to all the issues above.  I also moved a footnote out of the lead section, where its placement was bothering me.  Let me know if you have any further issues or concerns.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)