Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 17:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

I have somewhat detailed knowledge of this topic from local media. That's all I really want to say about myself in relation to this review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   My comments: In the lead, paragraph 2, it says that "United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald noted that there had been no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama." The use of "noted" implies that this is actually true, as opposed to its being merely Fitzgerald's (albeit informed) opinion. Paragraph 2 of section 1 has the same issue. In the last paragraph of section 1, it says that "In the wake of the scandal reform measures are being proposed," a sentence that not only has a possible tense issue but is not fully elaborated upon in the rest of the paragraph, which describes only one specific measure (to require special elections to fill vacant senate seats). The last paragraph of subsection 2.1 has a spelling error (inquered) and could use a rewrite in any case. Per WP:LAYOUT the single sentence paragraphs in the Calls for Resignation section should be combined into a more substantial paragraph. In the last paragraph of the "Impeachment vote and trial" subsection, the sentence "Although he is disqualified to run for any Government of Illinois office, he is eligible to run for federal office such as his old congressional seat" has the pronoun "he" without the intended antecedent (although it likely refers to Blagojevich, the last mentioned male was Quinn). Given the ongoing nature of these events, I would also suggest a copy-edit to ensure that the tenses are consistent (the verbs should probably be in the past tense for events that have already occurred).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   In section 2, paragraph 1, both sentences need citations (the first as [potentially] opinion, the second as a quotation). The "Calls for Blagojevich to Resign" box could use citations. References look fine, although, given that the review has already been withdrawn, I will leave checking the sources to make sure they are, in fact, sources for the cited statements to a future reviewer. I don't see any problems with original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The trial and retrial get very short shrift. There are a lot of aspects (the streamlined retrial prosecution case, the lack of a defense in the first trial, Blago on the witness stand in the retrial, the jury deliberations as reported by newspapers, and so on) that are not adequately covered in the current article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see any glaring problems with NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I would caution, though, nominating the article again until the sentencing (which is scheduled for August) is finished. Because the retrial had already ended, I did not quick-fail this nomination as an article about a rapidly-changing event.

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):

   Images definitely add to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Withdrawn by nominator.

Nomination withdrawn. I agree with your 3a assessment and have just noticed the dead links in the reflink checker.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)