Talk:Mary Isenhour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will be picking up the review, both to help out my fellow Wiki Cup participants and to earn points for the GA cup as well.

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Copyright violations Tool

Pings on a couple of terms, I like to see these revised to not be a straight on copy. I passed on anything that repeated titles or committiee names etc. but these four can be reworded.

career as a staffer in the Kansas House of Representatives
worked with leadership and committee members to develop
Ed Rendell's successful 2006 re-election campaign, was an early supporter of
From 1995 to 1999, Isenhour was national political director for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee
- I changed all of these except the third one, which I had trouble finding in the article. Which one specifically needs to be changed? — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with the changes, thank you. Y

Disambiguation links

Checks out Y

External links

Issues found for resource

1. 28
2. 33
3. 35
4. 36
- 33 seems to be working now, but yeah, the links appear to be dead for the other three. Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:LINKROT, which isn't terribly uncommon when news articles get older (though I'm surprised it happened so fast). Given that these are online versions of articles that have appeared in print newspapers, however, I have removed the URLs but believe the citations still work as offline sources. Let me know if you have any other thoughts? — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is acceptable and yes linkrot is a big problem. Did you check any of those archiving websites? But I agree losing the link is only a minor problem so I am good with the sources. Y

Well Written

Lead

The three lead paragraphs basically all start with her name, can you mix it up a bit?
- I changed the beginning of the third lead paragraph. Is that enough? — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better
"presidential campaign, and assisted" does not need the comma
- I actually think it is helpful because the commas in this sentence separate three clauses: 1) executive director of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, 2) state director of Hillary's campaign, and 3) assisted with Casey and Rendell campaigns. I think having the oxford comma there avoids confusion, but if you still feel strongly, I'll remove it. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am okay with leaving it in
"and said "few can move" should be "and said, "few can move"
- Added. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
"as national political" should be "as the national political"
- Fixed. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed

Early career

"the following year was administrative assistant", either "an administrative" or "the administrative", depending on how many of those he had? sorry not too familar with US politics (I just live here ;-) )
- lol Added "an". — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
"Isenhour was director of" should be "Isenhour was the director of"
- Added. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
Any info of what she did in 1993-1994? There is a gap
- Sorry, I haven't been able to find a source with that info. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like Isenhour is pretty private about her life outside of her work based on this and other comments you've made. The challenge i we can only add it what sources support - I would rather have a gap than unsourced speculation etc. so this is just one of those things that cannot be helped. MPJ -US 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"worked as was national political director", probably should be "worked as the national political director"
- This is gone now. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
"she worked closely in Iowa", worked closely with whom or what?
- I just removed the word "closely". — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed

Pennsylvania career

"helping to elect Democratic candidates to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives", I am guessing she did not do the actual voting, it should probably be reworded to something along the lines of "helping Democratic candidates get elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives:
- Changed to "helping to get Democratic candidates elected". — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
"From 2003 to 2008, Pennsylvania posted a 73 percent win record statewide, and Democratic base turnout increased by nearly 25 percent.[1]", while it is a fact it comes off as giving Isenhour a ton of credit for this, which is not sourced at all. I think this could be stricken from the article to avoid indirectly crediting her for this.
- I removed it. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent
"In 2008, Isenhour and Rooney met with MSNBC news commentator Chris Matthews to discuss the possibility of Matthews running against Republican U.S. Senator Arlen Specter." - seems like such a trivial detail, they met and... well what?
- I added that he ultimately didn't run. It's really just an aside, but given that it only takes up one sentence, I still think it's worth including. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The follow up gives it a bit more context so it's okay.
"Isenhour also taught and lectured", that is redundant isn't it?
- You're correct. I removed "lectured". — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
"after more than seven years leading" should be "after more than seven of years leading"
- I think that is what it says? — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... why did I make that comment? I am not sure
Question - if Adrienne Baker Green became a partner why did they add Carey to the name? that's confusing me.
- Hmm...I don't remember why I put this in the article. LOL I've removed it. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent
"Eisenhour served on board" shold be "Eisenhour served on the board"
- Yup. Fixed. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed

Governor Wolf administration

"state Rep." = "state representative"
- Changed, though "Representative" should be capitalized if it immediately precedes her name. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed
Anything happend since July 2015?
- I've added this bit from new sources. I didn't find anything else so far. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay good

Personal life

Not even a date for when they were married or anything?
- Not that I can find. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well we can only put in what can be verified.

Sources/verifiable

So #1 is a primary source, which I will keep in mind when I am reading through the article to ensure #1 does not source anything contentious etc.
The rest look like news coverage in general.
Is there an author credited on the article for reference #8
Same question, reference #10
And #12
And #31
- None of these articles had specific author names. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not actually check the articles so I am okay with this.
Otherwise formatting etc. looks good

Broad in coverage

Not at the moment, it's 99.9% about Isenhour the political worker, and then btw she's married and has a cat. Is there really nothing else? Nothing before her early career started? I am not going to fail this one, I recognize the fact that there may be limited information available. I want to be sure there isn't more out there that can be added?
- Yeah, I really wanted to add more personal life information, but basically everything I've been able to find is about her political career. I suppose that's understandable given that it's her career and is why she's notable. Suffice it to say, I've included everything in the article that I can find. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As stated above, we can only put in what we know. For living people who are more private this is a challenge at times but that should not keep the article from GA status.
Added challenge, some of these sections are very high level descriptions "worked with", "helped" this and that, but what specifically did she do? the article lacks some depth in certain areas. I would expect a few more detail on her personal ife
- In basically every case I'm as specific as I can be based on the source material. But if there are any specific instances where you feel the source has more that I should include, let me know and I'll happily add it. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is what it is.
Y

Neutral

Looks to be, as long as the one sentence that inferred credit to her for the Democratic succes
- I believe that one is gone now. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed Y

Stable

the short article history does not reveal any issues as such and no real edits since September 2015. Y

Illustrated / Images

Well no, it is not - no pictures available at all?? Not sure if this is a deal breaker, I will check on the policies to see how much of a hard requirement this is.
- There are no fair use photos out there that I can find, and an email to the subject to try to get a photo to use has so far not received a response. To your question about this from a policy perspective, I actually think WP:MUG specifically says images of living persons can only be used if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy". — Hun ter Ka hn 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I got the same impression when I checked the ruke

Alright that's my review complete for now. I will check up on the image issue but otherwise there are things here and there to be addressed. I am putting the article on hold for 7 days to allow improvements to begin. MPJ-US 02:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've addressed everything, but there may be a few items outstanding depending on whether you believe it's complete or not. Let me know if there's anything else, and thanks for the review! — Hun ter Ka hn 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at your updates and feeback I am going to pass the article, congratulations the article was 99% there to begin with, glad to see that last 1% completed too so it could become a Good Article. MPJ-US 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]