Talk:Sandi Jackson/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Dana boomer in topic Sandi Jackson GA Review
Sandi Jackson GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Guess I'll take this one too! Should have this review up in a bit, too. Dana boomer (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- In the Personal life section, you give her childrens' birth dates, and then give their ages. I would remove the ages, as this is information that will quickly grow outdated. The birthdtes are fine to leave.
- Those use templates that update every time a page is refreshed or loaded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right after the birthdate information, you have "Sarah Stevens accompanies the family on commutes between Chicago and Washington." I guess I'm not sure who Stevens is, in what capacity she serves the family, and why it matters that she travels with them...
- Above I introduced her as Sandi's mom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- In the "Early political experience" section, at the end you say that Jesse Jackson discouraged his wife from running for office in 2003, but the boxed quote you provide seems to say the opposite - that he wanted his wife to become alderman as of 2002.
- The "Issues" subsection of the 2007 Election section could probably be combined with the "Campaign" subsection. Three sentences isn't really enough to make a section.
- In the 9th paragraph of the "Aldermanic career" section, you say "Jackson viewed it as a moral issue where the Mayor did not appropriately condone immoral activity, which in her eyes encourages similar behavior." Condone means to support... Do you maybe mean punish or speak out against or perhaps "the Mayor inappropriately codoned"?
- Condemn.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please try to combine or expand some of the short paragraphs (1-2 sentences) sprinkled throughout the article. They make it choppy and less inviting to read.
- How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- In the Personal life section, you give her childrens' birth dates, and then give their ages. I would remove the ages, as this is information that will quickly grow outdated. The birthdtes are fine to leave.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- As with the Thompson article, the newsbank domain name has changed.
- These are suppose to be permalinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref #56 (Flannery) deadlinks.
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please make sure web refs have access dates. Ref #70 doesn't.
- Please make sure web refs have publishers. Ref #12 doesn't.
- I'm assuming that ref #11 refers to the book listed under the references section. But...ummm...the title is different. Maybe I'm just missing something? :)
- Chapter removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The publisher for ref #5 should probably be Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, rather than chicagoelections.com
- As with the Thompson article, the newsbank domain name has changed.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, it's late and I'm tired, so I'm going to check out for the night. I've done everything but a full prose check of the article, and so far everything looks pretty good. If you want to work on the reference issues over night, please feel free to, and I'll finish up the review tomorrow afternoon at the latest. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work you've done so far. I've finished with the prose review, so simply these issues and the one dead link are all that remain. Let me know when you've finished up with these and I'll be happy to pass the article! Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work you've done so far. I've finished with the prose review, so simply these issues and the one dead link are all that remain. Let me know when you've finished up with these and I'll be happy to pass the article! Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, it's late and I'm tired, so I'm going to check out for the night. I've done everything but a full prose check of the article, and so far everything looks pretty good. If you want to work on the reference issues over night, please feel free to, and I'll finish up the review tomorrow afternoon at the latest. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
