Talk:Mary Higgins Clark/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA Reaasessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 11, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The prose throughout is full of repeated phrases and needs copy-editing. I have made some minor copy-edits but it should be recast for clarity, good grammar and style. Phrases such as Creativity abounds in Clark's office verge on weasel wording. Clark continued writing even during these hard times. is clumsy. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • Basically ok - I am not sure about having her full married name in the infobox, better to have her writing name, I think

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • 3 dead links found using CheckLinks

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All RS

   c (OR):

   • no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • OK

   b (focused):

   • Some sections jar such as In 1981, Clark happened to be in Washington, D.C. the day President Ronald Reagan was shot. Because she had a press pass she was able to join the media waiting to hear the President's prognosis. When the doctor finally arrived to start the press conference, Clark was one of the few people chosen to ask a question. What is the point of this section, is it neccessary?

   Clark dated throughout her widowhood, and underwent a "disastrous" marriage in 1978 that was annulled several years later. I wonder if this is necessary. If further details cannot be sourced, it might be better to omit it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • OK

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • OK

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • OK

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I would like a good hard look at the prose throughout - it is nearly there but in places it is clumsy and repetitive. Alls 3 dead links to fix. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Ok as no progress has been made I am de-listing this article - it can always be brought to WP:GAN at a later date. Major contributors and projects were informed when I placed the artcile on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)