Talk:Jill Biden/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes Ref #10 (Essential Estrogen) reliable?

Ref 2 (The News Journal) deadlinks.

Ref 3 (The News Journal) deadlinks.

Ref 13 (Associated Press) deadlinks.

Ref 22 (Biden Breast Health) deadlinks.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall a very nice article, but there are a few issues with sources, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! Regarding the references issues: I have eliminated the Essential Estrogen one, as it was redundant. I have replaced the first of the Delaware News Journal cites with another source that's online. The second DNJ cite has also moved behind a paywall (DNJ does that quickly, alas, as I've found out on the Joe Biden article), but it is needed, so I've adjusted the URL to the paywall location for the article and added the 'fee required' text (there was already another DNJ cite done the same way later in the article). I have replaced the AP cite instances with one new cite and one existing cite that provide the same information. And I have fixed the Biden Breast Health cite, its URL just needed a tweaking due to a site change. Let me know if you have any other comments or concerns on the article, and thanks again. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]