Talk:Ruth Kelly/GA1

GA Nomination

The following problems have compelled me to fail this article in its current state:

• Sections - The way this article is organized needs to be addressed. Why do individual points (Fathers for Justice attacks, Gay equality issues, etc.) have their own major headings?
• Point of View - Several sections feel like they violate WP:NPOV. One should especially note the GA criterion all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted.
• Original Research & Sources - This article appears to synthesize new information ( She did so only after accepting the appointment of Tony Blair's adviser Andrew Adonis as a Minister within her Department, an appointment she did not welcome.). Some of the article makes assessments of situations (Kelly's time as Secretary of State has not been easy. It seems as if Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools will pick up the mantle of trust schools.).
• Red links - I count at least eight within the article body.
• Citations - Several cite tags exist, and after reading the article I think there is a lot more that either needs citations or needs to be deleted entirely (WP:OR). (This was reported as the government backtracking on many key issues although they stressed that it was not a climbdown.)
• Stability - Article appears to have several defenders who challenge every change made... not always a bad thing, but doesn't really give the article the appearance of a clear consensus / stable article, especially when coupled with original research issues.
• Images - while not an automatic disqualifier, the article could use a few key pictures.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

It should be noted that I am not a British subject and have no prior knowledge of the subject. I also encourage archiving the talk page. /Blaxthos 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)