Talk:John Adair/GA1

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

And I guess I'll take this one too! Review up in a bit... Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is a bit top heavy. Two paragraphs (maybe three) is appropriate for an article of this size.
 * I'm having trouble getting it under three substantial paragraphs. Take a look and see if my combining/trimming is sufficient. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check to make sure that what's in the lead aligns with what's in the text. For example, in the lead you say "Adair's promising political career was threatened when General James Wilkinson accused him of being involved in the Burr conspiracy. Although Adair was later cleared of any wrongdoing and Wilkinson was ordered to issue an apology, Adair was forced to resign his seat in the Senate," However, in the body it does not say that Adair was forced to resign, and it says that Wilkinson charged/arrested him after he left the Senate.
 * Hmm. On second look, you're right. When I first wrote this article, I guess I made a connection that the sources don't explicitly support. I think the lead is accurate now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I've added a fact tag in a couple of places where I would like to see references.
 * I've provided cites where requested. The cite for Adair's being the namesake of Adair, Iowa may be a little shaky. I don't doubt the fact, but the source may not pass WP:RS. Nevertheless, it's the best I can find. If it doesn't suffice, I suppose I'll remove Adair, Iowa from the list. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:21, 9 January 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:
 * A few issues with prose/MOS and a couple of places that need references, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope my responses above are sufficient. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. I agree that the Ohmynews ref is possibly iffy, but I don't see anything hugely wrong with it so I'll let it pass.  However, if you plan to take the article to FA, know that this will probably be challenged.  The lead looks good now, and matches up better with the article.  Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few issues with prose/MOS and a couple of places that need references, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope my responses above are sufficient. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. I agree that the Ohmynews ref is possibly iffy, but I don't see anything hugely wrong with it so I'll let it pass.  However, if you plan to take the article to FA, know that this will probably be challenged.  The lead looks good now, and matches up better with the article.  Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)