Talk:Jim Gilmore 2008 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
You might want to add "Iowa" after "Des Moines", I mean I know where the city is located, but how 'bout your reader. In the Campaign developments, "...Gilmore made the assessment that when Iraq was invaded the president probably didn't think American troops would be trying to control the streets" ---> "...Gilmore made the assessment that when Iraq was invaded the president probably did not think American troops would be trying to control the streets", per here. Same section, "...American is "going to end up with a major war", is "American" suppose to be "America"? Same section, "...Gilmore stated that saw no problems with it", add "he" between "that" and "saw".
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Throughout the article, link "energy independent", "Tucker", "This Week", and "George Allen", to their correspondence articles. In addition, you might want to look at Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses for spacing throughout. In the Early stages section, "Washington Post" is supposed to be italicized, since it's a newspaper. Same section, "A Washington Post-ABC News Poll", I don't think the "P" in poll is supposed to be capitalized. In the Campaign developments section, "On the show, he criticized the credentials of Former Senator and potential candidate Fred Thompson of Tennessee", "Former" should not be capitalized.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
In the References, "National Liberty Journal", "Washington Post", "USA Today", "New York Times", and "Washington Times", need to be in the "work" format of the reference, not "publisher". Also, References 11 and 14 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here. In addition, there are two dead links.
Check.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Does Reference 20 cover all the info. in the Campaign staff section? Or is just the third paragraph in the section?
Check.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
In File:Jim Gilmore 2004 NSTAC.jpg, is he taking questions?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, just doing my job. Thank you to William S. Saturn for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]