Talk:Paul Shoup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Keithbob (talk · contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS

• lead: The lead needs to be expanded so that it summarizes all of the significant content in the article
• layout: The organization of the article and the section heading titles are very subjective and could even be said to border on Original Research. We should use simple, neutral headings like: "Early life", "Career", "Personal life" etc. A bio is the story of a person's life and it has a flow. Bouncing back and forth in time, within each subjective subcategory fragments the man's life and is confusing to the reader. Better to arrange the content in a neutral fashion according to chronology, which will be kinder to the reader.
  • Family: Has too much information about the lives of the siblings and no information about the subject. It needs to be cut back significantly and replaced with info about the subjects interactions with his family and a description of his early life including education.
  • Paul Shoup House info does not deserve its own section and needs to be integrated into the rest of the article.
• word choice Remove qualifying words and editorial phrases like "while there", "while he wrote","which began his personal relationship with the San Francisco Bay area.", "It is there that he supposedly began", "as part of his promotion", "Beyond this direct involvement", "Beyond Southern Pacific," etc.
• fiction,
• lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. There are several citations that consist of plain URL's and are not properly formatted citations.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage. Fairly broad, but it needs info on his early life and education.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. I don't thinks its intentional, but the material is not presented in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable. Yes its stable no edit wars.

   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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Editors have done a good job of assembling material but the article still needs a lot of work before its ready for GA status.