Talk:Mike Capuano/GA1

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. PrairieKid (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I felt it was very well-written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The second paragraph of the Tenure section needs more citations. Citation 20 does not list out all of the positions mentioned. The 4th paragraph could also use another could use a citation. The one provided is written (for lack of a better term) in hindsight. One that was written during the original dispute, before the apology would be good. Besides that, I would say they are all in.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Again, with the Tenure section. He has been in office for 15 years, yet the section only has 5 paragraphs, and does not talk about his 5 years in office. The elections section should also be expanded.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Good.
 * 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):
 * I would like another image. Perhaps one of his earlier Congressional years, him campaigning, or him giving a speech on the House Floor.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will put this article on hold for one week. The tenure section needs more citations and simply MORE and another image would be very useful. I think it can easily be done in a week. Thanks for all the work already put in to this article and all the work to come.


 * I now think this article meets the criteria. For further improvement, I would suggest adding to the tenure section. For now, however, I think the article is up to par. Nice work! PrairieKid (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)