Talk:Barney Frank/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer:Tom Morris (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I'm reasonably happy with the prose for GA, but it can tend towards clinical, context-free vote-tallying at times. Some of the sections can often feel like slightly strangely connected bits of legislation that Rep. Frank has supported or co-sponsored or opposed or whatever, strung together into difficult paragraphs. The problem is splitting those paragraphs up would basically leave the article as a series of bullet points without bullets before them! There aren't really any parts of the article where the words get in the way of understanding, but sometimes the lack of paragraph breaks between different issues might make it clearer.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are a number of broken links: specifically footnote 49 (, the link for William A. Percy ('Outing') although that's not a big problem as it is a print source. Please could editors go through and fix the broken links listed at the checklinks page.
    Yes check.svg Done The broken links have been resolved.
    In the section about Frank's early career in the Mass. House, specifically on the matter of zoning prostitutes, there is a sentence pointing out that his opponents erroneously portrayed him as wanting to permit red light districts across the state. It would be useful if this could have a citation. I am willing to accept that if they made such claims they were erroneous based on the previous citations in the paragraph, but it would be useful to be able to verify that his opponents did in fact make such statements. That may be a big ask and is more of a nice thing to have than a requirement for passing GA.
    I'll pass it on 2(a) and 2(b) if the broken links are fixed.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The 'Economic Issues' section is a bit sparse, but that's because most of Frank's actions and views on economic matters is covered later in the section on his membership and former leadership of the House Financial Services Committee. The section on 'online gambling' may also potentially be better moved into the economic issues section as although regulation (or prohibition) of online gambling in the US is as much an economic issue (as it prevents businesses offering online gambling services) as it is a social issue. I won't block GA for this, but it would be nice if editors were to consider beefing up the Economic Issues section as Frank has certainly been frequently seen on outlets like MSNBC and in the more liberal end of the press railing against bankers and demanding better banking regulation.
    It would also be useful given Frank's membership and former leadership of the HFSC to have some mention of his views on banking, housing and mortgage regulations and so on from before the crash. Again, that's really a request for expansion of the article rather than something that blocks GA.
    I'm not sure how rail security is a 'military issue'.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The section on abortion lists Frank's support for two pieces of legislation for providing emergency contraception, one for rape survivors and the other within the context of the military. There are plenty of people who don't think that the morning-after pill is "abortion" in any meaningful sense of the term. It might be an idea to fix that, although it is a rather minor concern. The problem is it is quite difficult to work out how to change the article to make that fit.
    Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the neutrality of the article.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    It is semi-protected and there doesn't seem to be any major sparring going on, and no revert warring or edit warring that might block passing of this criteria.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images are public domain and on Commons, so there are no fair use justification issues to contend with. The images seem well selected and used judiciously.
  7. Overall:
    The issues over broken links have been fixed. If the other stuff can be fixed in the future, that'd be grand. The prose issues are hard to fix but would probably be something that would be raised at FA.