Talk:Mitch Daniels/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 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 fixed some minor things. Easily above GA quality. This sentence: "Daniels has been honored by the Arab-American Institute with the 2011 Najeeb Halaby Award for Public Service." seems very out-of-place to me, though.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Everything's sourced and reasonable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very broad. May need to be rewritten for concision in some places.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No major disputes raised. The controversial parts look even-handed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   See #4.

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):

   I think the infobox image should have a caption as it's a little dated.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm going to pass this as GA quality. Are you going for FA? —Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)