Talk:Jim O'Neill (investor)

GA review

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Jim O'Neill (investor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 02:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Opening comments Opening Comment – Hi, and thank you for submitting this article for Good article status on Wikipedia. My name is CookieMonster755, and I will be reviewing this article in the next couple of days. Please be patient, as it may take up to seven days to complete a review. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 02:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Comment – I have done a brief overview of the article. I did a quick examination, and this article will most likely fail Good article status, failing criteria 1, 2, 3 and 6. However, since I have not done an in-detail review, I will not be failing the article until I finish the review. This is just a heads up that the review will be mostly comments of improvement. CookieMonster755✉ 02:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Review Well-written: Criteria Notes Result (a) (prose) For the most part, the prose looks good. Fixed spelling and grammar. Pass (b) (MoS) The lead does not adequately summarize the subject of the article. Please see WP:LEAD for more information. Overall article fails to comply with manual of style guidelines. Sentence structures can be too repetitive. Article does not comply with MOS:WTW. See #Career section for example(s). Fail Verifiable with no original research: Criteria Notes Result (a) (references) Article is lacking references to claims stated about the subject. § Career and § Other professional activities sections are missing references. In addition, claims in the infobox are not sourced in the article body. Fail (b) (citations to reliable sources) Some citations are not reliable sources. Citation 2 is not a reliable source. In addition, some statements within the article cite unrelated references, therefore they fail to be verifiable. The § Career section is full of citations that are unrelated to the statements. There are statements with no citations to verify the claims. Fail (c) (original research) There does not appear to be any original research, however I am giving this section a neutral score, because statements without citations may be considered de facto original research. Neutral (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyright violations, no plagiarism found. Pass Broad in its coverage: Criteria Notes Result (a) (major aspects) The article does not address main aspects of the subject in question. It states several things about his career history, but very little about what he did in his profession or influences he made in the said profession. It reads like a LinkedIn page. Fail (b) (focused) For the most part, article is focused on the subject. However, the § Other professional activities could use some improvement. Pass Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Notes Result The article is neutral for the most part, does not have bias or undue weight. Pass Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Notes Result The article has not had any major edit wars, though it was tagged for speedy deletion not too long ago, which raises some concerns, considering that this article was nominated for Good article status before and after hand. However, this does not meet the fail criteria set by GA. Pass Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Criteria Notes Result (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No images in article, though an image is highly recommended. Neutral (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) See above. Neutral Result Result Notes Fail This article has failed to reach Good article status. I also want to note that this article was definitely nominated prematurely. The nominator nominated this right when they were making major revisions to the article, which is a no-no. In addition, no major work was done between January 2017 and now to improve the article. Specific details References – references were a major factor in the failure of this nomination. Several references do not work anymore. This includes: https://archive.hhs.gov/deputysecretary/pr20080703.html. In addition, https://alumnius.net/yale_university-8044-173 is an unreliable source and you must have a subscription to access https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/trump-team-is-said-to-consider-thiel-associate-o-neill-for-fda. References and citations need major improvement. In the § Career section: From December 2002 to August 2005, he served as Director of the Speech and Editorial Division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he wrote or edited all speeches given by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He was also a member of the United States Delegation to the World Health Assembly. has no citation and needs one per WP:BLP. Also, the government departments listed should be linked to their respected Wikipedia pages if one exist, and the sentence structure needs fixing and work to comply with WP:MOS. Both the Other professional activities and Views sections should be renamed to something that is more encyclopedic and reflective of its content. I would rename the former to Personal activities and the latter to Political views. Quotations need to be formatted correctly, and abbreviations avoided. Instead of saying While at HHS, O'Neill opposed FDA... state, While working at the US Health & Human Services, O'Neill opposed Food and Drug Administration.... Most sources do not go in depth about the subject, but just brief mentions of him. Notability may be questionable. Regardless, I am sorry to inform you, but this review has failed. Please feel free to contact me for more information or follow up questions. Best regards, CookieMonster755✉ 03:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)