Talk:Sylvia Mathews Burwell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Review started

I'm taking on this review.--Mr. Guye (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Already done. Procedural pass. Copyedited by the GOCE member Corinne just prior to nomination.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Already done. Procedural pass. Copyedited by the GOCE member Corinne just prior to nomination.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	✓ Pass
	2b. 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).	✓ Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	✓ Pass
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Not approved Mild violation: ~~see report~~ Fixed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	✓ Pass
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	✓ Pass
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	✓ Pass
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	On hold. Do we have a consensus on the title? There is a consensus. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	✓ Pass
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	✓ Pass
	7. Overall assessment.	Accepted

Comments

@Corinne: is a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and had copyedited this article just prior to its nomination. Her comments would be valuable--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Mr. Guye (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, Mr. Guye. I thought that editors close to the article were not supposed to participate in the review. Is that an incorrect understanding? – Corinne (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knope7 and Therequiembellishere: seem to be the biggest contributors to the article. Knope7 is also the nominator.--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye:, can you please explain why the nomination is now listed as "on hold" rather than "on review"? It appears the review is still ongoing. Is that correct? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Potential mild Copyvio see the copyvio detector. I won't pass this GAN if there are any potential copyvios.--Mr. Guye (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the higher the percentage the more likely there is to be an issue. When I've found issues, the percentage is usually in the 80%-100% range. The percentage here is 29.1% and it says "violation unlikely." The comparisons show that the tool is picking up things like "Secretary of Health and Human Services" and the names of the schools she attended. To be on the safe side, I changed "She is the daughter of," since that got picked up as a possible violation. Can you please clarify what problem you see with the results? Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knope7: That is why I said mild copyvio; the similarities were somewhat minor but still questionable. I think it is better now.--Mr. Guye (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title dispute

Title dispute There was a disagreement here. Airbornemihir moved the page to Sylvia Burwell. Knope7 disagreed and moved it back. Have you two found a consensus yet?--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mr. Guye: Thanks for checking. Knope7 made sure to discuss with me here before the move - consensus exists. Airbornemihir (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is right place to leave this comment, but I would like to express an opinion on the title. Ms. Burwell married in 2007, but she began her career in 1982 while she was still in college, so all those years, from 1982 to 2007, she was known as Sylvia Mathews. That's one reason why I think "Mathews" should be part of the title. Another reason is that throughout the early part of the article, she is referred to as Mathews. Thus, I think the title should be Sylvia Mathews Burwell. – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Comments

I'm not reviewing this article, but I just wanted to point out a few quick things:

Citation 52 needs its formatting fixed.
You should add this article to Portal:Barack Obama.

Werónika (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

The article passes all parts of the Good article criteria. I accept it as a Good Article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]