Talk:Nannygate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: demize (t · c) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial impressions

After a quick glance, it would appear to be a very well sourced article. The lead, however, is not at all sourced - this may be a barrier to it passing GA, however there are some general sources (listed in the bibliography section, all books) and sources used later in the article may apply to the lead as well. If so, I will most likely cite statements in the lead using these sources. demize (t · c) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for undertaking the review. Regarding sources in the lead section, I am following WP:LEAD's permission to omit citations in leads as long as everything in the lead is also established in the article body with inline citations there. I believe this makes the lead more inviting to the reader. Many FA and GA articles follow this practice of not putting cites in the lead; if you look at the GA articles listed at User:Wasted Time R#A's and faves, you'll see ones I'm responsible for, but many other editors do this as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I noticed that the references were out of order in places, so I ran the article through AWB's general fixes. There were no real changes other than the order of references. demize (t · c) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   While there are no images, I can't think of any images that would be in context and appropriate

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well written article.

Well written, well sourced. Good job! demize (t · c) 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)