Talk:Jennifer Brunner/GA2

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

Hi Tony! Sorry it's taken me so long to get to the article - things have been a bit hectic in RL... Anyways, I'll try to get to at least everything but the prose tonight, and hopefully through the rest of the review by tomorrow afternoon. Dana boomer (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Private practice section, the information on her work with the Ohio Pesticide Applicators for Responsible Regulation is repeated in the first paragraph and the third paragraph, with the exact same wording used in both instances.
 * I must have copied and pasted instead of cut and pasted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Private practice, third paragraph, "but that was allegedly disproportionately by the Ohio Democratic Party." does not make sense.
 * Got this one too. I forgot to update here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Private practice, next to last paragraph "whose published election-related literature challenged" doesn't make sense.
 * was challenged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref 158 (Majors, Stephen) is dead.
 * Swapped ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 162 (Smyh, Julie Carr) is dead.
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've completed reviews for references, images and stability. I'll complete my review tomorrow, as it's getting a bit late in my part of the world. Dana boomer (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've completed my entire review, finding just a few prose issues in addition to the two dead linking references I pointed out last night. I find no evidence of the POV issues addressed in the prior review and the GAR. I am placing the review on hold to allow time to deal with the few issues detailed above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've completed reviews for references, images and stability. I'll complete my review tomorrow, as it's getting a bit late in my part of the world. Dana boomer (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've completed my entire review, finding just a few prose issues in addition to the two dead linking references I pointed out last night. I find no evidence of the POV issues addressed in the prior review and the GAR. I am placing the review on hold to allow time to deal with the few issues detailed above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)