Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the lead, this sentence ---> "He is an attorney and became a senator in 1973 at the Constitutional minimum age of 30", reads very strange, might need to be re-worded. In the Early life and education section, spell out "J.D.", I mean I know what it means, but how 'bout the reader who reads this article. In the Family and early political career section, "Popular Republican incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs was considering retirement", remove "popular" since it is a peacock term, per here. Same section, this sentence ---> "Biden's campaign had virtually no money, was managed by his sister Valerie Biden Owens (who would go on to manage his future campaigns as well)", maybe adding "which" before "was". Same section, "As a single father for five years, Biden left standing orders that he be interrupted in the Senate at any time if his boys called", maybe replacing "boys" to "sons"? Same section, "In remembrance of the accident, Biden does not work on each December 18", remove "each" makes the sentence read strange. In the 2008 Senate candidacy section, this sentence ---> "If he won both races, he would have to resign from the Senate by Inauguration Day – January 20, 2009[103] assuming he chose to become Vice President", remove "he chose" and add "he becomes Vice President". Cause, didn't he accept the VP nomination at the DNC?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, and anywhere else in the article, "U.S." needs to be "US", per here. In the Early life and education section, it would be best if "Claymont, Deleware" is linked once, per here. In the Family and early political career section, this sentence ---> "and he had overcome her parents' initial reluctance for her to be seeing a Roman Catholic", "seeing" doesn't seem to be the right word, how 'bout "dating"? In the Family and early political career section, link "Wilmington" once. In the Political positions section, add (ACLU) after "American Civil Liberties Union", the reader might not know what it means. The article should have a consistency between "%" and "percent".
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    It would be best if the book sources use {{cite book}} template. References go after the parentheses.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Is there a source for this ---> "Biden has since won additional terms, usually with about 60 percent of the vote. Biden spent 28 years as a junior Senator due to the two-year seniority of his Republican colleague William V. Roth. After Roth was defeated for re-election by Thomas R. Carper in 2000 Biden became Delaware's senior Senator. He is now the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Delaware history"? In the Judiciary Committee section, in paragraph 6, are there sources available in the first three sentences? Does Reference 64 cover all this ---> "Biden has twice run for the Democratic nomination for President, first in 1988, and again in 2008. Both times he was unsuccessful. He also considered joining the Democratic field of candidates for the 2004 presidential race but decided otherwise, saying he did not have enough time to cultivate a sufficient fundraising base. Biden had urged Republican Senator John McCain to run with Kerry, saying the cross-party ticket would help heal the “vicious rift” in U.S. politics"?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments and for taking on the review, ThinkBlue! I'm already working on them. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and do hit me up when you get the concerns done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have done a bunch, but a few more still to go. Back on later this evening to work on them, will let you know when done. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I have now made changes to address all of your concerns. (There was also an unrelated move of the law school plagiarism material from the 1988 section to the Early life and education section, due to other editors' comments.) The only exceptions are these:

  • I really, really don't like the idea of changing all the "U.S." to "US". It's quite contrary to how standard American political writing is done. I believe that WP:MoS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations gives me leeway to use "U.S." here, because this is a very United States-specific article and because there are few if any other abbreviated country names (such as UK) here. Usages like "U.S. Senate" and "U.S. Supreme Court" are right this context, while "US Senate" and "US Supreme Court" just aren't.
  • I've changed to use "percent" not "%" consistently throughout the article text, but still use "%" in the election results tables at the end. I believe this is consistent with what WP:MOS#Percentages recommends.
  • I believe {{cite book}} is used throughout the article for book cites. If there are any that don't, let me know which they are. For the one very frequently cited book, The Almanac of American Politics 2008, I've put the base cite in the References section at the bottom, and used a short-form reference to it in all the footnotes. This is a standard scheme that I've seen used in many FA articles.
  • I couldn't find a cite for the after-Roth junior-to-senior senator statement, but it shouldn't need one, as it's self-evident once you see what years Roth served. If you still object to it, the statement could just be removed; despite what some Wikipedia editors seem to think, the junior/senior senator distinction isn't all that important in real life.

Anyway, thanks again for the review, and let me know if you have any further issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many flaws in the article. However, fixing them quickly would lead to edit warring as negative changes tend to be opposed by supporters. A few areas look like a campaign article but taking them out just weeks before an election can't be realistically done. This is why the good article consideration should be put on hold until mid November. Otherwise, the GA designation will stifle changes because once the award is given, it will be even harder to change and improve. 903M (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

903M, you need to be specific about the "many flaws". So far, all you've harped upon is the hair plugs thing, over and over and over. What are the "few areas" that look like campaign material? Be specific. And you're wrong about the timing. This article gets the least amount of edits and edit warring of any of the four presidential/vice presidential candidates, so we can and do accommodate comments and suggestions. And getting a GA doesn't stifle anything; it just means the article is "good", not that it can't be better. And as an example of articles not being put on hold just because the election is near, the John McCain article was promoted to FA in August, just a month ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to interfere here, but if this "hair plugs" things is added to the article, that sort of info. might be considered trivial and may not be appropriate of its use. But, if he hasn't made any comment about that, don't add it, it would be useless to include. Overall, all the comments I left have been dealt with and I would like to congratulate Wasted Time R for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) Also, if you are having thoughts in nominating the article for FA, I would recommend opening a peer review, for glitches that I may have missed, believe me it'll be a bridge to somewhere. :P --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again very much for the review!! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden/GA2&oldid=953926706"