User:HopsonRoad/Sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] GA assessment: Dick Cheney
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- -The use of sources is appropriate. Most statements are sourced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- -The addition of the Washington Post series on Cheney contributed essential substance to the article. To reach WP:FA status, material from books on Cheney's vice presidency would be appropriate.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- -The addition corroborated material from the Washington Post series on Cheney added necessary information on Cheney's behind-the-scenes influence, his influence on tax policy and on environmental policy that were previously missing. These topics should be expanded upon to reach WP:FA status.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- -The article initially had the appearance of "sugar-coating" the topic. The editors were earnest in their effort to achieve balance. This Discussion page reveals that reviewers questioned the NPOV quality of some material, especially that in the Washington Post series. However, this appears to be accepted. Clearly, the topic arouses strong opinions pro and con the vice president, which are challenging to restrain in contributing to the topic.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- -Thanks to good use of this Discussion page, the issues in editing the article have been discussed beforehand and the article appears to be stable.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- -The images are primarily from government sources and appropriately tagged.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- -The images could be better tied to the topic in which they are found to qualify for WP:FA status.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- -The article meets GA criteria, but is vulnerable to POV editing and bears vigilance to assure that essential aspects don't go missing or are compromised.
- Pass or Fail:
[edit] Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: {{{well written}}}
- 2. Factually accurate?: {{{accuracy}}}
- 3. Broad in coverage?: {{{thorough}}}
- 4. Neutral point of view?: {{{NPOV}}}
- 5. Article stability? {{{stability}}}
- 6. Images?: {{{images}}}
{{{closing comments}}} If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.
