Talk:Heidi Cruz/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

inprogress Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Overall, the article is a decent start, but it needs some work to get to GAN status. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) Well written:
 * Following her marriage to Cruz in 2001 you need to explain who that is in the body and not rely on the lead.
 * There's some issues with run-on sentences and/or improper comma usage that should be cleaned up, for example It was noted at this time by Patrick Svitek of The Texas Tribune that she had become more visible in the past few months after spending the initial months of the campaign playing a behind-the-scenes role,
 * In January 2016, it was reported that her husband's campaign was also financed by a previously undeclared loan Cruz received from Goldman Sachs. She stated it was required of Goldman Sachs employees to hold their assets with them—it's unclear to me what this line is saying; how does requiring employees to hold their assets with them explain the undeclared loan?
 * (2) Verifiable:
 * References need cleanup; some references have author information, others don't... some properly format the publishers, others just leave the website.
 * The stray note (At Goldman Sachs, a class of employees are promoted to "managing directors" biennially. It is not equivalent to a CEO.) needs a reference.
 * (3, 4, 5) Broad in its coverage, neutral, stable:
 * There's a lot of one-line paragraphs in the piece, which suggest topics are not being fully addressed.
 * The lead does not adequately summarize the entirety of the article.
 * Article appears broadly stable, and I didn't see any huge POV issues.
 * There's some issues with unclear or weasel wording in places, such as was viewed by commentators—which commentators? If you don't have a high-quality source that can summarize this statement as the general consensus, but are instead using individual publications, you need to name them.
 * (6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 * Images appear freely licensed and checked off by OTRS where applicable. I'd recommend making the link between the retouched images used here and the originals more obvious, however, since it makes it easier to verify provenance.

Ok I will address those issues this week. I see what you’re referring to regarding some run-ons and what not. A lot of the things regarding the 2016 election were contemporary to that time so it seems like when it came to commentators, those editors just lumped it altogether, so I will find some notable instances. I found a recent source in Business Insider that confirms how the managing director promotions work and what their equivalents are. The thing about the loan seemed to stem from some controversy about who was funding his campaign, so she spoke on it regarding how the family’s personal finances relate to her employment at GS. But frankly I think it’s ultimately trivial and can be removed entirely. ⌚️ (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Any updates on progress? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I unwittingly got side tracked with work these past 2 weeks so my editing frequency has been lower than usual but I should be complete with it at least before the weekend is over. I shall let you know when. Also, when it comes to the first image should I just put it in an alt? ⌚️ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding what you said about making the link between the original image and the retouched image, I’m wondering how I should go about that. ⌚️ (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use the  or   of Template:Information to link to the original uploaded copies. Cleaning up the description pages for the images used would help as well.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok I'm back. I removed some irrelevancies, fixed run-ons and fixed the templates that didn't include author or publisher. I put the other version under the photo, hope I did that properly. ⌚️ (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will take another look at the article this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As no other issues have popped on in a recheck, passing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)