Talk:Richard Neal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: No dabs.

Linkrot: No dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:38, 28 August 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):
 * Neal has long been speculated as an eventual frontrunner...' is not good prose.
 * One of Neal's longstanding legislative priorities is to simplify the tax code. Who says - attribution in the text required.
 * He successfully pushed in 1998 to exempt a child tax credit from being affected by the AMT, and in 2001 Congress made it permanent at his urging. Clarify what the it is.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The PDFs referenced in 1-15 and 38 are large documents so need page numbers.
 * The books when referenced in footnotes need page numbers for the particular cites.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad and focussed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Does everyone love him - are there no critics?
 * 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):
 * File:Ma02 109.gif should have a caption such as "Second U.S. Congressional district of Massachusetts in the 109th Congress"
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing those issues. If you want to take this to WP:FAC, page numbers are essential as they allow the cites to be quickly found. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's not much in the way of published praise or criticism, so I tried to follow the lead of FAs like John McCain and Barack Obama and focus on events rather than opinions. But I made a few changes. The book references are only two pages long so I don't think individual page numbers are necessary. —Designate (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing those issues. If you want to take this to WP:FAC, page numbers are essential as they allow the cites to be quickly found. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's not much in the way of published praise or criticism, so I tried to follow the lead of FAs like John McCain and Barack Obama and focus on events rather than opinions. But I made a few changes. The book references are only two pages long so I don't think individual page numbers are necessary. —Designate (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's not much in the way of published praise or criticism, so I tried to follow the lead of FAs like John McCain and Barack Obama and focus on events rather than opinions. But I made a few changes. The book references are only two pages long so I don't think individual page numbers are necessary. —Designate (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)