Talk:Newt Gingrich/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A good article is
  • Well written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. and
(c) it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images:
  • Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.


Good article nominations are reviewed for the above as well as for—

  1. Clean-up tags

If there are valid clean-up tags on your article, including Cleanup, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links and multiple Fact tags, then you need to address the issue(s) raised before nominating the article.

  • Stability

If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as:

  • an edit war among regular editors,
  • frequent editing due to a current event,
  • a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or
  • proposed merges and splits,

then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.Instability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as:

  • an edit war among regular editors,
  • frequent editing due to a current event,
  • a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or
  • proposed merges and splits,

then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.

  • Article length

Although there is no set guideline on article length for GAs, it is best for the article not to be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic. The article should be broad, covering multiple areas to give readers an overview of the topic.

  • Summarized lead

The lead (introduction) should summarize the topic by touching on all of the various sections within the article. For articles of various lengths, guidelines recommend that the lead range from one to four paragraphs.

  • Images

Carefully scrutinize any non-free images against WP:FUC. Non-free images may be used only if their exclusion would impair a reader's understanding of the article. Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary. and include detailed fair use rationales. On the image page, ensure that the rationale specifies the article that the image will be used for. Look at similar articles that have reached GA/FA status for examples. The use of images should comply with WP:MOS#Images and WP:CAPTIONS.

If possible, use only free images that are available/applicable to the article's topic. Look for images already located on related Wikipedia articles or search Wikimedia Commons. If there are no images available, consider uploading an image of your own if you have the permission or ask the permission of an author of an image on websites such as Flickr.

  • Inline citations

Articles are expected to be well-supported by reliable sources. While it is not necessary to provide a source for every single sentence or any common knowledge facts, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires a source to be named for all direct quotations and any statement that a reader is likely to dispute, such as statistical information (ex: 47% of all goods were sold; 3 million people attended the event; the city sustained $588 million in damages).

Editors may use any style of referencing and any method of presenting citations that they choose, so long as the article is internally consistent. Well-developed articles generally use some form of inline referencing, which allows the readers and future editors to identify which specific source(s) support any given statement. The two most common inline reference styles are footnotes and parenthetical references.

  • The footnote system uses <ref> tags to create a clickable link following the assertion that it supports. Either full citations or shortened citations followed by an alphabetical list of full citations may be used. The footnoted citations are collected with the <references /> tag in a section towards the end of the article. When using the footnote system, a source can be re-used by naming it: <ref name="Exampletitle">. This prevents you from having to retype the entire citation each time. See WP:REFNAME for more details.
  • The parenthetical system places the full citation in an alphabetical, bulleted list near the end of the article. Within the article text, a shortened citation names the author, (usually) year, and page number in parentheses, like this: (Ritter 2002, p. 45). If parenthetical references are used inline, then the footnote system can be easily used for any necessary explanatory notes.
Citations to online materials should be written out in full, in whatever style you are using, instead of simply including a bare URL. Whether you choose to manually format the full citation or use a citation template is your choice. Both of these examples (at lines #1 and #2) produce identical-looking citations for the reader (shown at #3):
  1. Tanner, Lindsey. (08 February 2008) [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy"] at [[USAToday.com]]. Retrieved on 10 February 2008.
  2. {{cite news |last=Tanner |first=Lindsey |title=Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy |publisher=[[USAToday|USAToday.com]] |date= 08 February 2008 |url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm |accessdate=10 February 2008}}
  3. Tanner, Lindsey (08 February 2008). "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy". USAToday.com. Retrieved 10 February 2008.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Whatever method you use for formatting, providing full citations is strongly preferred to providing only a bare URL, which appears to the reader as either this: [1] or as http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm

When trying to find sources of information for an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, newspapers, journals, interviews, etc. Consider using a local library for researching information in printed resources. To find online resources, use websites such as news aggregators and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for a source, the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles.

  • Brief fixes

Although the Manual of Style is comprehensive in improving every aspect of an article, a nomination does not need to meet every MoS guideline to reach GA status. However, the more accurately and uniformly the article follows these guidelines, the greater the benefit for its readers. A few common Manual of Style errors are listed below.

  • Avoid contractions (such as wouldn't, can't, should've, etc.) within the article unless they are part of a direct quote.
  • Measurements should include both the customary and metric units. Consider using the Convert template for easier editing.
  • When using abbreviations make sure they are explained at their first occurrence in the article.
  • When wikilinking, make sure that dates are only linked when relevant and avoid overlinking common knowledge terms and topics. See WP:CONTEXT and MOS:UNLINKDATES for guidelines. Also, ensure that the wikilink directs the reader to the correct article instead of a disambiguation page.
  • Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone. Either attempt to expand on them by adding more information or going into greater detail or incorporate the paragraph with another section.
  • Language use should be consistent. Editors contributing from different countries tend to use their own spelling conventions, which can result in, for example, use of "theatre" and "theater" in the same article. Analyze the existing prose and the topic's context to determine which variant should be used.
  • Ensure tense remains consistent. For instance, if you say "Bob said hi," then all future commentary should be in the past tense ("Jane agreed and said hello" as opposed to "Jane says hello").
  • Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. An article that is filled with a large number of lists can be difficult to read and will not flow very well.
  • External links

Ensure the external links conform to WP:External links guidelines.

Location of links

Such links belong either in an infobox or in the last section on the page, which should be titled "External links"; they should not be present in the body of the article. One common error is linking company websites or stock trading websites to the names of things mentioned in the text, like this: "Meta-Wiki is an organization that..." or "Apple Inc. (NASDAQAAPL) is a publicly traded company". Such links should be moved to the appropriate infobox and/or external links section instead.

Choice of links

If the subject of the article has an official website, that website should normally be linked. Otherwise, do not include too many external links, but consider providing enough high-quality links that a reader could easily find more information on the topic. Webpages that are used to support text in an article should generally not be duplicated in the external links section. No article is required to have any external links, and every external link must be justifiable. Common errors are listed at WP:ELNO.

Reviewers initial notes[edit]

I base nearly all similar articles I contribute to on the GA article Mitt Romney. I believe it will be fit this review to base his notes on the similar article already listed as GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  • "They lived on Main Street in an apartment above what is now a computer store, MainFrame."Is that a proper name or just a computer mainframe?

Green tickY**This looks like trivia so I removed it. Green tickY* In the section "Goverment shut down" that should read "hard line" not hardline. Green tickY**Fixed, but I used "hard-line" since it's an adjective. Green tickY*in the Documentary section the says to "A Nation Like No Other,America at Risk". Please add a space between the comma and the word American. Green tickY*In the same Documentary section, a space is needed between "of" and "American exceptionalism". Green tickY**These appear to have been fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Green tickY* The lead has a great deal of inline citations. For GA consideration it should not. All information should be in the body of the work. Similar GA articles comply to this standard.[2] Green tickY** OK, I removed some of the excessive details and citations. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Green tickY* The "Pre-speakership congressional activities" section is divided into several mini subsections. They are too short and need condensing. Green tickY* Post-speakership section needs condensing as well. Green tickY* Same with the "Personal life" section Green tickY** I condensed these sections. —Designate (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Green tickY* The line

In 1995, Time magazine selected him as the Person of the Year for his role in leading the Republican Revolution in the House, ending 40 years of the Democratic Party being in the majority. During his tenure as Speaker, he represented the public face of the Republican opposition to President Bill Clinton.

is out of place in the lead and sticks out like a sore thumb. It has no source and is not in the body of the article.

Green tickY**I worked it into the lead and the article. The second sentence is a little too general to put in the article verbatim, but I think it's supported by the section on his tenure. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

Green tickY* The first section: Early Life, has a [citation needed] tag. Do not remove the tag unless the claim is referenced or removed. GA articles cannot be listed with tags. Green tickY** Someone removed the statement. Green tickY*The claim to reference 135 is not substantiated by the reference.

    • Removed.

Green tickY* Reference 134 is a collection of Student opinions. This cannot be used, as the reference is not the source, the students are and how are they reliable sources? It's "Man on the street", not expert opinion Green tickY** Found a different source. Green tickY* This statement has to go along with the reference:Gingrich has authored or co-authored 16 non-fiction books since 1982, several of them bestsellers. In recent years, his works have had a more large scale policy focus, including Winning the Future, and the most recent, To Save America.[144] That's a book search listing all his books, it is not a published third party, secondary source. That's called Original Research Green tickY** Reworked. Green tickY* Reference 124 is a blog. It cannot be used as a reference Green tickY** It's an author's opinion published by a mainstream source WP:RSOPINION, so if it's presented that way it's not objectionable. It's self-published blogs that are a problem. I added the author's name. —Designate (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

2c. it contains no original research. There is a citation needed tag. Reference the statement.

Green tickY* See point 4 above Green tickY*The "Alternative history" section in books is false. That should be under "fiction" as those are all novels. Green tickY**The first line of the alternate history article defines it as a genre of fiction. —Designate (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Green tickY*Comment It is a sub-category or sub-genre and therefore should have a title to reflect starting with fiction. To do otherwise is not supported by the first category and seems misleading.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Probably a little too broad here and there but that's a focus issue.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Green tickYThere is a good deal of unnecessary details in the article.

Green tickY*Gingrich is a fan of the Swedish pop group ABBA, and uses their song "Dancing Queen" as his cell phone ringtone.[133] Green tickY**I removed some of the trivia. I think the article is a comfortable length overall. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This has to go: Green tickY"Gingrich stands for his beliefs and does not shy away from positions that could be considered controversial". POV and OR

Green tickY**Done. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Green tickY* All the small sections are giving undue weight. They need to be incorporated

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Green tickY
  • The article was protected on May 31, 2011 and seems to be relatively stable with the editors contributing as of the start of this review.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

Green tickY* The image of Clinton: File:Clinton1997SOTU.jpg[3] does not have proper sourcing and cannot jusify the Public Domain claim from the information provided with the description only. It should probably have the full boiler plate if not at least the exact information that would be found on it. I would just add it and fill the decsription that's there, the author information with the link provided as the source and full date information. The link should have most of the information or easily searchable. It should resemble this image from the same source:File:Clinton_health_care_elderly.jpg[4]. Green tickY** Fixed. Designate (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Green tickY* The same is true with this one:File:SpeakerGingrich.jpg[5]. This last image must be removed before GA can be listed. It has NO context in the prose and only serves as decoration. Green tickY** Are you sure? It seems weird to leave it out. Ronald Reagan has his portrait included, and that's a FA. Same with George H.W. Bush which is a GA. I think the GA criterion is "relevant to the topic [Gingrich]", not necessarily "context in the prose". Designate (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There is no context to use the portrait. Green tickYThere is consensus and presedence.
7. Overall assessment. Very good article. Lots of hard work.

I have not ended the review as of yet and originally thought this would be a pretty easy pass with a few fixes here and there...but I am discovering some referencing issues. If that becomes a problem guys I will declining whether than holding if there are too many.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GA listing hold begins today[edit]

I have not gone through every reference but have noticed it has some issues. Probably not so much that it can't be listed if, at the very least, the ones marked are corrected as well as the rest of the fixes mentioned are implemented. If all the review notes are corrected in 7 days from today, 2:46 am Pacific Standard time I am prepared to list the Article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)