Talk:Joe Biden 1988 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "he was hit", doesn't sound encyclopedic. Maybe if it was re-written, a little.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Is there a source for this ---> "Because of his early withdrawal, Biden did not participate in the 1988 caucuses and primaries, in which Governor Michael Dukakis defeated Jesse Jackson, Senators Al Gore and Paul Simon, and other longer-standing contenders"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
It would help if an image can be inserted to the article, so it can illustrate the significance of it. But, if an image can't be found, I won't fail the article because of that.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkBlue, thanks very much for reviewing this! I have made changes to address all three of your concerns. (However, I did leave in the redlink for Fordham Law Review, because it's a very well-known law publication and sooner or later I'm sure it will get an article.) Let me know if you have any further issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome on the review and the red link is fine, if its a recognizable publication, seems fine to have in the article. Not a big thing, but maybe adding an image of Biden or something, just a suggestion, but not a big deal. :) Alright, thank you to WTR for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and the pass! As for a Biden image, alas I've never found an image from the 1980s of him that we could use. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]