Talk:Nancy Pelosi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

References

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose read generally well.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Acceptable.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article seems to contain an appropriately prepared list of references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All problems have been resolved.	Pass
(c) (original research)	All statements seem to be appropriately cited.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Reviewing all high likelihood copyvio results, no issues were found.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers most major aspects, but could add coverage from her biographies or about her writing as discussed on the talk page.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article seems reasonably well-focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article is reasonably neutral and other problems were resolved.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article clearly has no edit warring and is generally stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All media are under free licenses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images seem relevant for their section and where necessary have descriptive captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	As the major problems raised have been resolved, I am promoting this article to good article status.

Discussion

Comment I have some concerns about the first few sections of this article. For the sake of transparency, I have worked on this article although I am not a top contributor. The sections contain several short paragraphs and leave unexplained gaps in her early career. For example, there is nothing covering the time between her being a Congressional intern in the 1960's to her being elected to the DNC from California in 1976. The article also says she resigned as DSCC chair in 1986 without saying when she became DSCC chair or explaining the DSCC. The 'Committee assignments' and 'Pre-speakership career' subsections are also too brief when compared to sections covering more recent periods of time. It seems implausible to me that, other than the Democratic caucus, the House Baltic Caucus would be her only notable caucus membership. Based on some research I did for this article when revising the Early life section, I think there is a lot more relevant and important information that is not currently covered in this article. Knope7 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Addressing the concerns

1. Lifesitenews -  removed
2. New York Post -  kept, since its only used once and is relevant and needed in context
3. "In 2012, she was given 0% ratings by both..."  made more specific (actually was 0 and 7, not both 0)
4. "Pelosi has voted to increase Medicare and Medicaid benefits."  removed
5. "She has also voted to remove an amendment..."  removed
6. "Pelosi has supported the development..."  removed
7. "Pelosi voted for the No Child Left Behind Act..."  2 sources added for the statement
8. "in 2004 and 2006..."  3rd source added
9. NewsMax  removed
10. about.com  replaced with the new york times

--DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: I've addressed the concerns you raised about sources --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)