Talk:Rob Kampia/GA2

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Some comments
 * The lead is far to short; it should at least be a paragraph.
 * The article lack an infobox.
 * There is no birth date. At least a birth year would be required.
 * What in all of earth is a "501(c)(4)". This is not understandable by people outside the United States.
 * Stuff like "R-GA" is uncomprehendible for non-Americans. If you feel the need to state this, use.
 * Cities should be wikilinked. The format is "Concord, New Hampshire", not "Concord (New Hampshire)".
 * DEA needs to be de-abbreviated.
 * No not repeat wikilinks.
 * The "see also" section should not refer to links mentioned in the article, nor contain non-self explainatory links (such as NORML).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Almost all the references are incorrectly formatted. Use cite web and cite news, and at minimum include an author or publisher and the accessdate, in addition to title and URL. Dates should also be included if available.
 * Using MPP as a source is not totally prohibited, but on certain matters it is in violation with WP:RS. Using MPP (a non-independent source) for most of the article cannot be accepted. Statements like "Kampia has been quoted in almost every major newspaper in the U.S." are somewhat subjective (what is "almost" and "major newspaper" defined as) and needs to be attributed to an independent source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article discusses very little about Kampia, and mostly redards his appearances in the media. For instance, I would like to see more than two sentences about his run for Congress. What was his main campaigning issues, did he receive many votes etc.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is clearly POV. Statements such as "for the purpose of ending the government’s war on marijuana users" are clearly biased.
 * 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):
 * The article has no image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am failing the article. It lacks the necessary scope to be a good article, as well as being incorrectly formattet (in particular the refences) and biased. If you feel there has been an error in the assessment, you can renominate the article, or ask for a reassessment. However, I strongly encourage that all issues be resolved bofore such action. The best of luck on further work. Arsenikk (talk)  21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am failing the article. It lacks the necessary scope to be a good article, as well as being incorrectly formattet (in particular the refences) and biased. If you feel there has been an error in the assessment, you can renominate the article, or ask for a reassessment. However, I strongly encourage that all issues be resolved bofore such action. The best of luck on further work. Arsenikk (talk)  21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)