Talk:Max Boot/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. It may take a few days. Ray Talk 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

So the only holdup here are some copyediting issues. I'll go down them in the order in which they appear.
 * 1) In the lead, the second sentence is a touch long and should be split up.
 * 2) The last sentence of the lead is really two sentences and should also be split.
 * 3) In the first paragraph on his career, the juxtaposition of "as well" and "also serves" is unnecessary and a bit too chatty for an encyclopedia. I think they can be dropped without hurting the article.
 * 4) The last sentence of the second paragraph is too long, and I think its structure may cause some confusion. Were Boot's responsibilities purely in the way of his column on the Rule of Law, or was it only one of them? Also, I assume you meant "investigative column" instead of "investigate column."
 * 5) The third paragraph is a bit jarring and seems out of place. There is no clear transition from his journalistic career to foreign policy specialist, and this paragraph jumps ahead abruptly to 2007, then back to 2002, and around again. I think a transition should be written, and his awards might be listed separately.
 * 6) The paragraphs about his books might be in a separate section - while they are major events in his career, they break up the chronological flow of the section.
 * 7) Be careful about attribution for book reviews. If the review is an unsigned review by the editorial board of a newspaper or journal, attributing the review to the publication alone is appropriate. Otherwise, you should attribute the review to the reviewer, while making mention of the publication where it took place.
 * 8) When using the name of a publication as a noun,
 * 9) In the beliefs section, be careful about the use of "as such" - it does not mean "therefore" or "thus." In this case, I think it can be omitted. It also comes up again in the last paragraph - there, "thus" may be better.

That's it! Others may come up with more issues, but those are the outstanding ones that I see. This was a pleasure to read, and I congratulate The Squicks on the amazing amount of very good work he's put into this biography. I'm putting this on hold, since I think the issues I mentioned should be easy to correct. Ray Talk 19:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to rewrite the Career section into a more logical, chronological order. Personally, I'm somewhat opposed to creating a new Books section since I think that the detail about the books works naturally with how his career progress. I also tried to fix the little errors here and there. I hope that the article is GA class now, I really think that it is. The Squicks (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations; I agree that the article passes the GA threshold. Ray  Talk 05:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)