Talk:Ned Breathitt/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Edward T. Breathitt/GA1)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • Lots of short paragraphs in the body of the article. Not a huge deal, but would make for smoother reading if some of them were combined.
    • Lead "serving from 1963 to 1967. After serving". Repetition.
    • Early life, "joined the law firm of Trimble, Soyars, and Breathitt." Did the law firm include the Breathitt name before he joined (was there a family member there?) or was the name added when he joined?
    • Breathitt's quest for a revised state constitution is mentioned several times. However, it's never described what he wished changed in the document. Would it be possible to include a brief mention of this, or would that be getting way off topic?
    • Later life and death, "law firm of Wyatt, Tarrant, and Combs." Is this Combs any relation to the governor that Breathitt worked under?
  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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

This is a great article, and I am passing it to GA status. I had a few comments and questions as I was reading through, but they are all very minor, picky things and more FAC-worthy than GAN-worthy, so I am not asking that they be resolved before passing this article. Nice work on another entry in the Kentucky governors series! Dana boomer (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply