Talk:Joe Kennedy III/GA2

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

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. I've decided to take on this article this week and the following week. Just by glancing at it I think it will easily pass--thanks for your work on this one! Stay tuned. ComputerJA (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
First off, thank you for the article. I'm impressed by how you were able to update the article after its first GA review. It is very well-written and comprehensive. I made several changes on the article as I went along reading it--if you disagree with any of my changes, let me know. There's also the possibility that I might have made a mistake, so let me know, too.

Now, here are some things for you:
 * "Kennedy's father was elected to Congress in 1986, which strained relations between the boys' parents, and they divorced in 1991" – The sentence is a bit confusing. How and why did his father's election strain the marriage? Does the source suggest that his position aggravated the situation? I cannot access the source, but perhaps you might want to put that after he was elected to Congress, they divorced.


 * "winning the primary with around 90 percent of the vote" – I cannot enter the source, but do you have the exact percentage?


 * "Roman Catholic" – I could not find anywhere on the article that proves he was a Catholic. It's safe to assume he was, but a source is required for it, preferably in the Personal life section.


 * "(DoB - October 4, 1980)" – Kennedy's date of birth is in the infobox, but it is not cited in his Early life and career section.

After this has been addressed, I'll be reviewing each of the sources individually and check for accuracy. I'll post if I have any concerns, and then we'll be done! Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've cited those three bits. The source does imply that Joe II's role in Congress was a major contributing factor to the divorce (although of course there are always many factors):


 * I don't know if the phrasing in the Wikipedia article implies a stronger causality than the Globe article, but I'll see if I can word it more clearly. —Designate (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing sources
Hi, Designate. I read all of the sources and made some minor updates to the article. I have only one small concern before the article passes:
 * "Bielat had run an unsuccessful campaign against Barney Frank in the 2010 election for the 4th district seat." – Sources 22 and 23 do not mention this fact. #22 says that they they are looking to replace him, but not that Bielat seeks re-election.

After this has been addressed, the article will be ready. Thanks for your patience! ComputerJA (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, I added one more reference. Thanks. Designate (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your contributions. The article passes. Congrats! ComputerJA (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)