Talk:John Millner/GA1

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this nomination. I should be able to begin my review with initial thoughts tomorrow today. PrairieKid (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I waited. I have been busy the last two or three days and completely forgot about this review. I'll start now. PrairieKid (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial Thoughts

 * WOW! That's short...
 * Where is a biography section? The date and place of his birth?
 * Could use a ce
 * Good citations
 * Needs more detail on house and senate time

Rubric

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

This article does not yet meet the criteria... With some hesitance, I am putting it on hold.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some grammar and spelling errors. It is readable but not perfect. Once more is added, more sections also need to come about.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I could only check on the few that were linked, but those were good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article ignored a lot of Millner's personal life and didn't go into his career much, which is disappointing.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing this article on hold for one week, for changes to be made...
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing this article on hold for one week, for changes to be made...

Overall
OK- The necessary changes are: Good things to add (not required by any means are):
 * Better grammar and spelling
 * MORE! MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE!
 * Basic information
 * Images

A reminder- once more is put into the article, the intro should also be expanded. In all honesty, I think this is one of those articles that simply does not have the potential to become a GA. I don't want to be pessimistic and I certainly came in hopeful. A lot of work needs to be done. I'll be back on June 26th to check in again, if not sooner. PrairieKid (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I apologize for not responding in a timely fashion, since I've been busy over the past week. I'll try to address your concerns shortly, but I understand if you must fail the nomination to meet your timeline. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. You're fine. I was beginning to get worried. I will give you a few extra days to meet the deadline. Thanks! PrairieKid (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find additional sources to expand the article. However, I can continue to copyedit my text. Would that be sufficient? Edge3 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't pass the article as is, even with the ce. I'm sorry. Some articles simply can not become GAs. I am going to have to fail this article. PrairieKid (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)