Talk:Rónán Mullen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: fourfound and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead does not fully summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD ❌
 * Stray sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs, see WP:Manual of Style (layout) ✅
 * Prose otherwise is reasonably well written.
 * Could you expand on this? Thanks--Patchthesock123 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the lead does not fully summarise his parliamentary career. the sentence "Mullen is a frequent media commentator on social and political topics and is well known for his work on right-to-life issues, human trafficking and immigration, hospice care and religious freedom." is hardly adequate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:Snappy is reverting your edits to the lead. I have asked them to comment here.  This pattern of editing is destabilising the article and I cannot pass it if this is going on. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The three dead links from the site {http://www.oireachtas.ie/} (ref #1, #10, #13) may just be down due to maintenance, please check in a day or so. The parliament site is OK now, I have replaced the other dead link.
 * Other references check out, citation neede tags need to addressed, also the clarification and who? tags
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}y} 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):
 * Tagged, licensed and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead and the stray sentences need addressing still. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, there is a content dispute between Snappy and the nominator. That needs resolution rather than edit warring.  I am not listing at this time as the article does not meet WP:GACR criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead and the stray sentences need addressing still. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, there is a content dispute between Snappy and the nominator. That needs resolution rather than edit warring.  I am not listing at this time as the article does not meet WP:GACR criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GAR Comment: Hi, In general I agree with Jezhotwells, though I've added a couple of tags to the article text: it would be better if those who accused the subject of obstructing the bill were named. 2)The phrase "constitutional filter" is never explained. I am not entirely ignorant of politics but couldn't understand it. 3) The list of Mullen advocacy in the first paragraph of the Seanad section needs a reference.

The dead links worked for me, I presuming that it was a temporary website problem and which has now been resolved.

I've gone ahead and expanded the lead, further suggestions are welcome. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, I think all the above are all fixed up. --Patchthesock123 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed that pov rubbish which is a direct copy from the subjects website and is unreferenced by other sources. Snappy (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)