Talk:Kentucky Education Association/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 04:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I liked reading this article. For being a new article, it is surprisingly well-done. Now, on to the review:

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   For (a), there are a few spelling errors like "superintended," and "In 1913, KEA was citicized." Grammar errors also need to be fixed, like "They have also been an FEC registered federal Political Action Committee during the 2000 and and 2008 election cycles," "In 2008 KEA/KEPAC was ranked as the number three political action committees in Kentucky" (singular/plural agreement), "ended the year with $451,575.66 in left its fund," (word transposition), "KEA has had at similar influence" (should probably be "a similar influence"), . Also, in general, the KEA is used both as a singular and plural noun; one or the other should be chosen for consistency. I saw a problem with WP:Words to watch, such as "The Lexington Leader claimed," (see WP:SAY). The article fails WP:LAYOUT, as there are no internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Lead is adequate; I saw no problems with fiction or lists.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References appear to be fine. This is not strictly required for GA (since I was able to find the references, which is all that is needed), but I would suggest using the citation templates or similar methods of adding bibliographic information to the bare links, so that someone can find the articles referred to if and when a link goes dead (or becomes a paywall).

   For (b), I am going to say that the article does not meet the criterion because there are several quotations, statistics, and controversial statements that lack inline citations. For example, "improved education funding, safe schools, better materials, smaller class sizes, and the empowerment of school employees and parents" has no citation, nor does "In the 2008 election, KEA spent over $27,000 to send direct mail to influence its members to vote for U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford," "Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear is running for reelection and he and his fellow Democrats have historically relied on the support of the KEA," and "In 2008 KEA/KEPAC was ranked as the number three political action committees in Kentucky, having spent $286,014 in the state. In 2010, the organization spent $435,291.18 on state political activities and ended the year with $451,575.66 in left its fund" (I was not able to verify this with the given citation, you may need to provide more details).

   For (c), I have an issue with the statement "KEPAC has a long history of campaign contributions to politicians in Kentucky." This statement is not directly supported by the source, and thus appears to be original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage appears to be fine. Since I am failing the article on the preceding criteria and do not have any major comments to make about these issues, I will leave this as neutral.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   At the moment, this article appears neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   No images, so this is automatically satisfied. Perhaps it would be possible to use the KEA logo as a non-free image.

7. Overall: There are so many issues with style and citation that I don't think could be fixed in one week. Hence, I am going to fail this nomination. I hope this review has been helpful. It's clear that you've done a lot of research into the KEA in writing this article, and it definitely has the possibility of becoming a good article, but I would suggest a copy-edit and WP:Peer review, with another GA nomination perhaps in the future once these issues have been resolved. Again, though, great work at starting such a comprehensive article!

   Pass/Fail: