Talk:Mary Jo Kilroy/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: RIPGC (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    almost yes with a few corrections
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


comments (break added for ease of editing[edit]

Comments: Just a few corrections are needed.

  • In the lead, there is mention of a litmus test but the lead is a summary of the article. I did not see a referenced mention of the litmust test.
  • Under career, it is awkward to mention her law firm twice.
  • See if she really did not run to be with her family or did the press think that was an excuse.
  • Under congressional career, it can be original research to pick and choose which bills she voted for. More significant would be the bills she introduced or if she were the lone or one of the few votes to vote against the majority of her party. Otherwise, in every Congresswoman's or Senator's article, you would mention if they voted to go to war with Germany in 1941.
    • I get your point, but for a junior legislator with little legislative track record (little to put in this section) it is probably a decent placeholder set of votes. Look at what the section would look like without it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the 2008 election, there is undue weight (paragraph) about the types of late ballots. Try to collapse this into text or consider whether it is pertinent.
  • Consider whether it is original research to say that the county was one of the best managed when she was just a member.

In general, this article is in decent shape and needs a few improvements to get GA. RIPGC (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to pass the article. However, I ask that you fix the references so that they are all the same format. Many are similar. I think the prose for the congressional career is a bit weak. I am also uncomfortable with the original research like decision to pick and choose which votes she voted for but I want you to get the recognition of a GA so I will not insist. RIPGC (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I overhauled the refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list of some of the ones in a different format are in Tony's user talk page. Ok, I can see why #2 is different but look at the later ones. Sorry to be so picky but references are considered by others to be very important. RIPGC (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten to include them on my talk page. The would be better suited right here on this page, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
copied from Tony's page....You missed a few. 88 87 75 74 64? 63 54 41
88 87 75 74 seemed to need fixing. The rest looked O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2 a blog? Who posted it? RIPGC (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPGC (talk • contribs)

(Moved from my user talk page) Can you go over it very carefully? There are some areas that could be worded better. One place mentions "Congressional Bill". Bill is a name but bill is a proposed law. Reference 82 is an editorial but people get flak for using editorials since you can always fine one for and one against almost anything. Some sentences are missing a comma.

I have tweaked the Bill text and added about a half dozen commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that you are picking and choosing which votes she voted on. If this is done for other politicians, the length would overwhelm the article.

Look throught the edit history. The only bill I mentioned was the one mentioned in The New York Times. Like I said on the talk page, I have exhausted all content from The New York Times, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report and Time Magazine. If you want we can remove the first paragraph from that section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of topics is odd. Why mention the Sierra Club? Are they more important than the Cincinnati Enquirer? There are many other areas that the article is ok or a little better. Is it good?

The Sierra Club was the only notable endorsement I could find in the newsbank service that I had access to at the time I wrote the first version of this article. I do not have access to the Enquirer at this time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to improve it. Rather than say she has a short congressional career, why not outline her life then see how the article compares with the outline. How has the local paper covered her? I've asked another user to help. I see that you are in a contest and I want you to win! RIPGC (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that nothing notable is missing from before her election to congress. I no longer have access to the local Ohio newspaper newsbank, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

second reviewer comments[edit]

I agree that this is "almost" there. Tony, please check again for consistency of caps. Vice Presidency should be capitalized if we're referring to the office Joe Biden holds--same with Presidency if we're referring to the other one. School board presidency. Etc. There are a number of awkward moments, and a few npov (I took one out in the lead). Some could be left in, with additional explication: for example, while she won by a substantially improved margin, but so what? How do your sources explain that, or what do they make of that? Pictures need dates, especially the one in front of the veterans monument in Columbus. There is also a lot of jargon that needs to be linked or explained to non-US readers, to whom much of this system is incomprehensible. There was also one place where the punctuation came after the citation; I couldn't fix it without an edit conflict with you. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried fixing the caps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added dates--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean about improved margin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well it's obvious that she won by a substantially improved margin, but what did the reporter say this meant? Is this indicative, for example, of a sea change in the voter attitudes? Was it anti-Republican party response?  ??? So what? Was it a better campaign, new campaign manager, more funds? To what did the reporters attribute her substantially improved margin? auntieruth (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She got elected in the Obama Democratic surge. I don't see articles linking her to the surge directly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issues I found:

  • "Kilroy was one of the four candidates to receive the endorsement of the Franklin County Democratic Party." It says earlier there were 18 candidates; were there four that got endorsements? Should say one of four then.
  • "In her re-election she won by a 28,500 margin, which was substantially more than the 4,300 margin" # vote margin in both cases.
  • "After regular ballots were counted, Pryce led Kilroy by over 3,500 votes..." This paragraph should probably come last to make it chronological; at first I thought she was trying to bring in conservative voters after the election, which I'm pretty sure is wrong.
  • Any information on any debates in the 2008 election? They were pretty detailed in the 06 section but nothing here.
  • Punctuation goes before reference tags; this is a problem in the Congressional career section.

I'll place the article on hold and pass it when the issues are fixed. Not too much left to fix, should be pretty quick. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Jo_Kilroy/GA3&oldid=378971538"