Talk:Curt Anderson/GA1

Curt Anderson GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

OK when checking against quick fail criteria, passing on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
I made some copy-edits. ~~The whole reads a little like a CV. I see that a major contributors is apparently one of Anderson's staffers so there is a potential conflict of interest issue here.~~ Removed several instances of "puffery" --..BlackThor^{Talk • Contribs} 01:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Th legislative notes section is an embedded list which does not accord with the MoS. This material should be rewritten as prose and incorporated into the previous section~~ Done. legislative notes section has been stricken and incorporated in previous section--..BlackThor^{Talk • Contribs} 01:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
~~ref #10 [1] does not support the cited statement~~ ref#10 has been redone--..BlackThor^{Talk • Contribs} 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ref #7 links to material which appears to be a copyright violation - if it is to remain we need clear proof that this is not such a violation; ref #16 [2] appears to be a self published source - find the actual publication of this this; ref #26 [3]is a copy of a newspaper article on another site - please cite the original; ref #28 [4] is over two years ago - is the bill still sitting on the geovernors desk?; ref #29 [5] links to material which appears to be a copyright violation - if it is to remain we need clear proof that this is not such a violation; EL to Facebook should not be there, see Wikipedia:EL.
b (citations to reliable sources):
See above
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
No mention of his divorce - the whole article reads like a CV as I said above. It would be good to see some other viewpoints on his career.
b (focused):
Too many minor details such as the number of doors knocked on, e.g. The team knocked on more than 20,000 doors, mailed nearly 100,000 thousand pieces of literature.... Also the sentence Other news anchors in Baltimore during Anderson's tenure included Oprah Winfrey, Jerry Turner, Mike Hambrick, Ron Smith, Sue Simmons, Vince Bagli and Spencer Christian. is not necessary. Neither is This first campaign coincided with the entry into electoral politics of fellow Baltimore City politician and eventual mayor Kurt Schmoke. The sentences listed above have been stricken.--..BlackThor^{Talk • Contribs} 01:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC) The whole section on slots could be summarised as "Anderson was a prominent opponent of the propsals."[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No representation of opposing points of view about the subject
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
After due consideration I am not going to list this article at the present time as there are a large number of issues cited above. Primarily the question of neutrality of an article created by and largely edited by an aide. There are a number of dead links and others which do not support the stated facts. It may be best to enlist a neutral editors and work with them to bring this up to good article standards. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]