Talk:Hazel R. O'Leary/GA1

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead

 * A sentence each covering what she did at Fiske and controversy as Energy Secretary probably belong as part of MOS:LEADREL.
 * Expanded. Knope7 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Early life and education

 * Merely a suggestion but sourcing exists that O'Leary had a "privileged" childhood which seems worthy of inclusion.

Career

 * At what level of government was O'Leary an "assistant attorney general" (the particular page cited doesn't show for me on Google Books)?
 * It was a state position, I have tried to clarify. Knope7 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Need a source in the same sentence as the Press Secretary (who should probably be named and wikilinked in addition to the title) quote about the "unacceptable" project.
 * I added the name and unhid the source. I generally hide consecutive sources to avoid overkill.Knope7 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There should either be a 2011 comparison of the Fiske numbers form 2008 or the numbers should be removed in 2008.
 * Finding old numbers for Fisk is challenging. I think given how much attention she received for the sale of art work, it is important to try and show other aspects of her tenure. My preference is to leave it the numbers to 2008, which provide a sense of the size of the institution she oversaw, and to leave the statement that enrollment improved. Both are sourced. I am open to hearing more about your thoughts. Knope7 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal Life

 * No sourcing for her second husband
 * Consecutive sources are hidden. It's sourced to Linda M. Harrington. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This section repeats information found elsewhere and is perhaps unnecessary. Alternatively the information found elsewhere should be removed so it's only in this section.
 * Her first husband is mentioned in the article because he affected her career. The third is mentioned because it explains her name and he also played a role in her career. I don't think it's unusual to mention spouses and children elsewhere if they are relevant and still recap in personal life. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If this section is kept might flow better next to Early life and education
 * Generally, Personal life sections are at the end because they are considered less important to the article than Career. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is her joining a Presbyterian Church worth inclusion?
 * There was an article about it and I think it just gives a little sense about what she does outside of her career. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Images

 * While the infobox is her official DOE portrait, I would suggest that the image which has the caption that starts "O'Leary speaks on September..." is higher quality and more recent and would deserve the better placement on the page.

Discussion
Can or other article editor please confirm interest in going through the GA review process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am still interested. Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I did not watchlist this page and so I hadn't seen your confirmation. I have done an initial read of the article and will begin my detailed read soon (probably tomorrow). Thanks for your patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

See comments and thoughts above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry went on an unexpected Wikibreak for a couple weeks and forgot to circle back to this when I returned. It looks ready to pass. Congratulations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)