Talk:Nannygate

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nannygate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: demize (t · c) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial impressions

After a quick glance, it would appear to be a very well sourced article. The lead, however, is not at all sourced - this may be a barrier to it passing GA, however there are some general sources (listed in the bibliography section, all books) and sources used later in the article may apply to the lead as well. If so, I will most likely cite statements in the lead using these sources. demize (t · c) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for undertaking the review. Regarding sources in the lead section, I am following WP:LEAD's permission to omit citations in leads as long as everything in the lead is also established in the article body with inline citations there. I believe this makes the lead more inviting to the reader. Many FA and GA articles follow this practice of not putting cites in the lead; if you look at the GA articles listed at User:Wasted Time R#A's and faves, you'll see ones I'm responsible for, but many other editors do this as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I noticed that the references were out of order in places, so I ran the article through AWB's general fixes. There were no real changes other than the order of references. demize (t · c) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   While there are no images, I can't think of any images that would be in context and appropriate

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well written article.

Well written, well sourced. Good job! demize (t · c) 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nannygate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620141331/http://www.fair.org/extra/9304/nyt-immigration.html to http://www.fair.org/extra/9304/nyt-immigration.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302181334/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/10/01/217567/index.htm to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/10/01/217567/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025083931/http://www.businessweek.com/1998/33/b3591131.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1998/33/b3591131.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)