Talk:Joe Biden/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

- Minute Lake (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Per WTA, one should avoid the word "claim" when the speaker refers to his own mindset, which this article does many times. Also, try to avoid words like "supposed."
 * Single sentence paragraphs need to be gotten rid of.
 * The lead could be improved by more fully summarizing the article.
 * Use blockquote for the currently-italicized quotations.
 * In general, the use of quotations can probably be lowered - many are not necessary.
 * Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section.
 * Some paragraphs are possibly too big, like the first in the 2008 section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * So close, but the 1988 section has unsourced information in the first paragraph. Looks good otherwise.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The information on Joe Biden's replacement is probably not necessary, or at least does not need to be covered in such detail.
 * The Vice Presidential section in general should be updated to include more focused information on Joe Biden.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It's close, but first off, the "claim" stuff should be fixed.
 * Furthermore, the 1988 section overall does not seem to take a NPOV. It takes a bit of a negative tone.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * There does seem to be more vandalism lately, but as far as I can tell, no actual edit wars. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this.
 * 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: On hold for two weeks.

I've take care of all instances of "claim" and "supposed". Still working toward GA quality... &mdash;  X   S   G   00:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess no one read what I wrote above. This nom was insincere, from a new account/troll/sock. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it but made the decision on my own that if I could do something to improve the article toward GA quality, I should. Whether the article's GA nomintation was sincere or no, I believe the article is better for my efforts.  And maybe when the article gets a sincere GA nod, no one will be able to find the above faults in it. &mdash;   X   S   G   06:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI/FWIW this was the GA nominator. Gnangarra 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reiterate what is stated above, this article was nominated by a sock puppet. It is not a valid nomination.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The bad faith nom notwithstanding, the review is still open. A lot of article work has been done, and I think the above concerns have been responded to, and the article is a plausible contender for GA. I've pinged Minute Lake to see if the re-review can be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[13:17, September 17, 2008 Minute Lake: I am failing because the time has passed, but a new nomination may be warranted (or a reassessment, I don't have time.)]

The article has a whole lot of flaws. It is difficult to correct it with the election coming up. Take out a flaw and someone thinks you are trying to cover up for the man or trying to smear the man. 903M (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)