Talk:Mitch Daniels/GA1

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (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 fixed some minor things. Easily above GA quality. This sentence: "Daniels has been honored by the Arab-American Institute with the 2011 Najeeb Halaby Award for Public Service." seems very out-of-place to me, though.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Everything's sourced and reasonable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very broad. May need to be rewritten for concision in some places.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No major disputes raised. The controversial parts look even-handed.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * See #4.
 * 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):
 * I think the infobox image should have a caption as it's a little dated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm going to pass this as GA quality. Are you going for FA? —Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)