Talk:Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner/GA1

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 00:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * The prose uses too many quotations and not enough paraphrasing. It makes the text clunky and difficult to read. I would recommend a third to a half of the direct quotations be paraphrased in all sections except for "Performance at the dinner".
 * fixed -- Dianna (talk)
 * For the most part, the prose is unchanged from when the article was de-listed from FA, and concerns mentioned there are still unaddressed. The prose doesn't need to be FA quality, but it does need work. In addition, these bits are difficult to understand or need improvement for grammar and sentence structure:
 * Comment: I came across this article while working on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. I found several references to this important event in American civil-military relations, which I discovered had its own article. I then decided to repair the article. The main criticisms at the FAR, which seems to have gone through only because nobody stepped forward to repair the article, were dead links, which I easily corrected (although a couple seem to have either been missed or broken since). The fact that repair was so straightforward belies the unjustified criticism of WP:LINKROT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Colbert then wrapped up the portion of his monologue specifically directed at Bush by parodying his energy policy, using Laura Bush's reading initiative as a springboard to mock-criticize books for being "elitist", and complimenting Bush for being "steady"." - the meaning is unclear.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "His jokes were often met with silence and muttering, apart from the enthusiastic laughter of a few in the audience, such as Antonin Scalia's hearty laughter as Colbert teased him." - poor grammar.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "At the end of his monologue, Colbert introduced what he characterized as an audition video to become the new White House Press Secretary (Scott McClellan having recently left the position)" - tenses don't match too well; clunky, poor writing. How about "At the end of the monologue, Colbert introduced a video showing a mock interview for the position of White House Press Secretary (Scott McClellan had recently left the position)". One doesn't "audition" for a position as press secretary; one is interviewed.
 * I wouldn't know; I've never been a press secretary; but "audition" what Colbert called it. The terms aludes to the showbusinesslike nature of modern news. Do you want "audition" in quotes?Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah; I've added the quotes so it's clear this was what Colbert said. I handn't seen the footage for a long time and forgot what had been said. -- Dianna (talk)
 * "C-SPAN also aired a segment that included the guests arriving, followed by Bush's skit, that excluded Colbert." - difficult to understand.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Much of the initial coverage contrasted the audience's reaction to President Bush and actor Steve Bridges' comedy routine with Colbert's remarks." - difficult to understand. What exactly is being contrasted with what?
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Even though Colbert's performance "landed with a thud" among the live audience, a clip of Colbert at the dinner became an overnight sensation, turning into a viral video that spread across numerous web sites in various forms, with the sites that offered the video seeing massive increases in their traffic." Sentence is too long; it needs to be split.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not an exhaustive list. I will help later on with copy editing once we get closer to completion.
 * I have now done two rounds of copy edits and am satisfied that the prose meets the GA standard. -- Dianna (talk)
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * There's material in the lead that does not appear elsewhere in the article. There's a largish section on allegations of a media blackout but this is not mentioned in the lead.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would change the sction header "Praise and criticism for Colbert" to "Praise and criticism of Colbert"
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * There are two definitions of the citation named "cnet" which can be combined.
 * ✅ done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two definitions of the citation named "death" but they are not identical so one will have to be re-named. The second citation is currently not being displayed; it is being masked by this naming error.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One citation is not in a citation template.
 * Citation #28, 39, 54, 61, and 71 are dead links : please try to get archive links using the Wayback Machine or other archiving service. Due to the length of time since most of the websites have been accessed (almost all of them date back to 2006), any that cannot be retrieved will have to be considered unverifiable. The citations will have to be removed and an alternate source found, or the corresponding material will have to come out of the article.
 * 28 and 71 are not dead. Removed dead link tags. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Repaired dead links Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Access dates should all have uniform formats.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you get a link for citation #24?
 * ✅ Switched to another link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot checks were done on sources, and no instances of copy vio or too-close paraphrasing were found. The citations backed up the material present in the article. -- Dianna (talk)
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * Unsourced quote in the lead from Frank Rich.
 * ✅ Sourced. (Moved out of lead.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * Spot checks revealed that opinions expressed were drawn from the sourced commentary about the event; no original research was found. -- Dianna (talk)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All GA criteria have now been met, in my opinion, and I have promoted the article to GA. Good work, Hawkeye7. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All GA criteria have now been met, in my opinion, and I have promoted the article to GA. Good work, Hawkeye7. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All GA criteria have now been met, in my opinion, and I have promoted the article to GA. Good work, Hawkeye7. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)