|Ann Rivers received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Ann Rivers has been listed as a Social sciences and society good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: November 5, 2013. ( ).
|WikiProject United States / Washington||(Rated GA-class, Low-importance)|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources
in relation to this article:
This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ann Rivers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am starting a GA review of this article
- Same here. It looks pretty good overall. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts / questions regarding the Benton incident material. Two revolve around current reference #27. First, while this is a problem with the source is that #25 & #27 are the same article from the same source, but two different web pages where they give two different dates. (April 20th & 21st) #27 is just the first few paragraphs from it and then links to the other page (#25). Second is that #27 is given to support the "hypocrite" statement but there is nothing about that in there. That leaves only #26, an op ed piece which actually makes the accusation to support the statement that "Some have labeled Benton a hypocrite" which is pretty weak, particularly for a BLP situation, and also a primary source for the statement in the article. (all of the references numbers are the numbers as of this writing) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done: I'll change the source, and rearrange the content to better represent the information. PrairieKid (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The statement "Many have come out in support of Rivers, who claims that Benton was harassing her and calling her a "weird, weird lady" prior to the altercation." looks unsourced. Particularly important as the statement is that there was much support for a strong accusation against Benton. Particularly important in a wp:blp situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done: Fixed above.
The lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. There was some info or more detailed info in the lead that was not in the body. I added that material to the body. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
GA criteria final checklist
- Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable
- Meets this criteria.
Broad in its coverage
- Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
- Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
- Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images
- Meets this criteria. Has one image. It is a free image so no article-specific use rationale is required. I think one is sufficient, but 1-2 more would be better. Maybe a picture of the I-5 proposed bridge? North8000 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can find, but I don't know if there is anything out there. PrairieKid (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! Nice article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article
(I have "duplicated" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article! Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer