Talk:Norma Paulus/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review, checking against quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

✓ Pass No problems with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Lead: ✓ Pass
   • Early life: ✓ Pass, I rewrote the penultimate sentence to improve the style.
   • Political career: "Smith then lost to Ron Wyden in the general election before he was elected later in 1996 to fill the vacancy left when Mark Hatfield retired." I am not convinced that this sentence is necessary as it does not relate to Paulus. "In 1996 introduced the Certificate of Initial Mastery and Certificate of Advanced Mastery that were designed to replace the high school diploma in Oregon." Presumably it is the word she that is omitted here. "In 2007, the Oregon Legislature eliminated the optional certificates from schools in the state." Which optional certificates? Please clarify. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ✓ Pass
   • Later life and family: ✓ Pass

   b (MoS):

   • External links: Why is the Saffron Swami article here? It could be used as as a reference but has no place in external links. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Reference #22 is broken, you may be able to find it at the Internet archive. Added page numbers referenced to #1, as required by guidelines for documents over 7 pages in length. All other online references check out. I assume that the other cited newspaper articles are not available online, so I assume WP:AGF. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All cited sources appear to satisfy WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • ✓ Pass

   b (focused):

   • ✓ Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • ✓ Pass

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • ✓ Pass

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

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

   • No images used

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • No images used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I shall place on hold to allow the few minor fixes noted above to be made. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Right nearly there -- I still don't see the necessity for the sentence about Smith, as mentioned above. Also the Swami article has no place in external links. I cite WP:External_Link#What_should_be_linked and WP:External_Link#Links normally to be avoided #13. This article is about the Swami, it does have a brief mention of Paulus: "In an effort to overwhelm the polls at the Wasco County election, the Rajneeshees bused in 4,300 homeless people from across the country, a strategy foiled by then-Secretary of State Norma Paulus, who set up a committee of 50 lawyers to review all new voter registrations." but that could have been used as a reference. It is not suitable as an external link. OK, I won't start a fight about that, the GA criteria are broadly satisfied. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The CIM/CAM link can indeed be found at archive.org: [1] However, I'm not sure it's exactly the version included before, so I'm not including it in the article without more careful review. (This is the most recent version of the page from archive.org). -Pete (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The dead link has been fixed, using a newer version of the page. I think I have fixed the other prose issues, but let mt know if it needs further clarification. With the EL, there is a little bit of info that would provide context for the voter issue if this were worked up to FA, but would produce too much of an undue weight issue with the current depth of the article, especially with the Rashnisihi part already taking up most of the Sec. of State time as it is. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Smith/Wyden provides context for the reader, as many would wonder who then won the general election, which would be Wyden. But then people would wonder how Smith and Wyden both served at the same time (I was confused myslef when I wrote the article as I had forgotten). I agree that more than a sentence would be too much, but it is just a sentence. As to the EL, ELs are not part of the GA criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, thanks for the reviews and the improvements to the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)