Talk:Kasim Reed/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The last sentence of the lead "In 2003, he made a name for himself as a political dealmaker..." is awkward and hard to read and understand. Please try to reword this.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the State Representative section, second paragraph, you say "In his 2000 re-election campaign, another Canty contested the seat..." Was this Canty related to Henrietta Canty, and if so, how? Had this seat been passed down in the Canty family before, or were they a poltically respected name?  Basically, why does it matter that he was running against another Canty?
 * It was the son. Usually when an offspring of an incumbent runs to replace a person it is notable. I don't know Georgia politics well enough to know whether the name is well-respeected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same section, same paragraph, when you say "Whereas, the 52nd House district..." The placement and relevance of this sentence doesn't make sense to me. First, it's not chronological with everything else, since you discuss the 2002 elections here and then start discussing stuff Reed did in 2001.  Also, what does it matter who won the election after him, if he wasn't running?
 * Feel free to remove "which was won by Fran Millar" from the text, but it is needed in the infobox. Text was moved chronologically.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same section, third and fourth paragraphs. These two paragraphs are rather repetitive and monotonous with regards to how they refer to Reed. It's all "he" or "him", which gets a little old after the first four or five in a row :)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same section, fourth paragraph, "he was responsible for surveying the electorate for their perception of the propriety of the campaigns advertising broadcasts." He was responsible for doing what?
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * State senator section, first paragraph. Is it necessary to include the names of the cities that are in the area he represents? It doesn't seem that important to me, and really just looks like a "blue streak" across the page that breaks up the flow of the text for no real reason.
 * To you and me it is a bunch of bluelinks. For the Georgia reader who knows the munipalities it is encyclopedic information.  I include the same type info in some Chicago politicians, where I know the neighborhoods, such as Toni Preckwinkle and it seems encyclopedic to me there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same section, second paragraph. What year did he introduce the bill? What was the result? What do you mean when you say "Faith is an area where Georgia Democrats differ from the national party." and what does that have to do with Reed?
 * Expanded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Georgia state flag section. "The referendum was originally a two-part referendum pitting the 2001 version of the flag against the proposed version and conditional on failed ratification of a new flag considering other flags including the 1956 version." Umm...what?
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Atlanta mayor section. "Although he was an Obama supporter, his exploratory committee announcement was coupled with an announcement that he would be pursuing a Hillary Clinton style coalition-building tour." I'm not sure what the first part of the sentence has to do with the last part. Just because he's an Obama supporter doesn't mean it's weird that he modeled his campaign style after Clinton's, IMO.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #2 (Senator Kasim Reed) needs an actual publisher, not a web domain.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if a reference has it's title all in capital letters originally, in its citation in the article it should not be.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:47, 15 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:
 * There are quite a few prose issues with this article - mainly places where things need to be explained better or worded more understandably. There are also a couple of issues with references, and so I am placing this article on hold.  Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA. Thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are quite a few prose issues with this article - mainly places where things need to be explained better or worded more understandably. There are also a couple of issues with references, and so I am placing this article on hold.  Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA. Thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)