Talk:Mariko Yamada/GA1

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are a few typos ("masters degree" should be "master's degree", and linked) and missing commas. Her parents' internment is mentioned twice, and the education is split into "Education" and "Personal life". The paragraphs are currently too short to be separated by headings (see MOS:PARAGRAPHS). Don't refer to her as "Assemblymember Yamada" in the middle of the article (see WP:CREDENTIAL). The lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD: most of the information in the lead doesn't appear in the article, and most of the article isn't summarized in the lead.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The references are incomplete if they only include a URL: there should be a title and source so the page can be located without the URL. Much of the information isn't cited, so this wouldn't be considered verifiable. If you're citing the official website, for example, then you should include it under "References" instead of "External links".
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This isn't researched enough and seems to just summarize her official biography. Look through newspaper archives for more specific information on what she's done. There should be information on her offices, her election, bills she's written, and so on. By the way, we generally don't mention where people's kids went to school; the names are sufficient.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * An article's not really considered neutral if it's not researched across several sources.
 * 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:
 * It's a good start, but this article doesn't meet the GA criteria yet. It needs to be expanded quite a bit. Try to find more sources and cite them so it reads more like a biography instead of a quick overview. Gary Schiff is an example of a minor local politician who has a well-researched Wikipedia article. It doesn't need to be as big or detailed as Schiff's aritcle, but you should look at that article to see how various sources can combine to create a solid biography on a subject like this. —Designate (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It's a good start, but this article doesn't meet the GA criteria yet. It needs to be expanded quite a bit. Try to find more sources and cite them so it reads more like a biography instead of a quick overview. Gary Schiff is an example of a minor local politician who has a well-researched Wikipedia article. It doesn't need to be as big or detailed as Schiff's aritcle, but you should look at that article to see how various sources can combine to create a solid biography on a subject like this. —Designate (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)