Talk:Title 42 appointment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Will review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   See 1 and 2

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. The block quote text includes "without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended" despite that not being present in the USC [1]. If the block quote is meant to be the original text of the law, it should be made clear because the first sentence makes it seem like the text is a copy of the USC. If it is meant to be the USC, the following sentence should be changed to reflect the quote.
2. The lead says that the EPA was able to start Title 42 appointments in 2005, but the article body says this began in 2006 before later saying this ability was extended to them in 2005; which is the correct date or can more context be provided on why the two different numbers appear?

• Per WP:ELPOINTS it's usually best to avoid external links in the body of an article. There are a number here, and it may be worth considering their value to readers.
• I think the article might read better if the order of sections was reversed.

@Wugapodes: Thanks for the review! I've corrected 1 and 2. The external links are part of the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations templates, which are routinely used inline. For this type of article, I tend to believe that it is best to describe the topic before the historical information, which is why the sections are in the order they are. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Results

On Hold for 7 days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Listed — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)