Talk:Joseph Desha/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The length of the lead makes this article a little top-heavy. Two to three paragraphs would probably be a bit more appropriate. At the same time, however, it could use more a sentence on his life after his governorship, as currently he apparently just drops off the face of the earth :)

• I've trimmed the lead significantly; I think it'll pass muster now. Also, it isn't really unusual for some of the politicians I write about to "drop off the face of the earth" in terms of notable actions following their political careers. I have tried to touch this up a little, though. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the Early life and career section, his wife's name is spelled as Margaret, while in the Later life and death section it is spelled Margret.

• Yep, that's my fault. Just wasn't paying attention. Good catch. It's fixed now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • I see the work by Bevins listed in the References section, but not used for an in-line citation. Also the Payne-Desha House ref.

• I've moved these to a Further Reading section. I think they were added by another editor, and I didn't pay attention to the fact that they hadn't been cited. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. • Does ref 13 (Kentucky's Governors) refer to the Bussey ref? If so, could you list it the same way you do #14, as just author and page number, please.

• Yes; again, this cite was added by another editor and I forgot to change it. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. • I've added a fact tag in one spot where I would like to see a reference.

• Cited now. Not sure how I failed to cite it in the first place. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few issues with references and prose, so I am placing the review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for another great review. I really appreciate all the work you're doing to help with the massive number of GA noms outstanding at the moment. Let me know if I need to do anything else to get this article passed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. I really enjoy reading your articles for GA reviews - they're well-written, well-referenced and on a subject that I enjoy learning about! Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)