Talk:Nannygate

Nannygate has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 20, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the Nannygate political controversy of 1993, Americans were asked if they had a "Zoë Baird problem"?

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nannygate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: demize (t · c) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial impressions

After a quick glance, it would appear to be a very well sourced article. The lead, however, is not at all sourced - this may be a barrier to it passing GA, however there are some general sources (listed in the bibliography section, all books) and sources used later in the article may apply to the lead as well. If so, I will most likely cite statements in the lead using these sources. demize (t · c) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for undertaking the review. Regarding sources in the lead section, I am following WP:LEAD's permission to omit citations in leads as long as everything in the lead is also established in the article body with inline citations there. I believe this makes the lead more inviting to the reader. Many FA and GA articles follow this practice of not putting cites in the lead; if you look at the GA articles listed at User:Wasted Time R#A's and faves, you'll see ones I'm responsible for, but many other editors do this as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I noticed that the references were out of order in places, so I ran the article through AWB's general fixes. There were no real changes other than the order of references. demize (t · c) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
While there are no images, I can't think of any images that would be in context and appropriate
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Well written article.

Well written, well sourced. Good job! demize (t · c) 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nannygate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]