Talk:Aaron Schock/GA1

GA Review

{{al|{{#titleparts:Aaron Schock/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Schock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 21:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This has had to wait far too long for a review. I've had a fair bit of experience with political biographies here at Wikipedia, so I'll field this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"

valign="top"

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

valign="top"

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|n|Many sections simply consist of a list of unrelated sentences, each kept separate from one another.

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|n|The lead section does not summarize the article's contents, as it is supposed to do according to Manual of Style guidelines.

}}

valign="top"

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|n|There are a number of non-referenced statements and claims made throughout the article.

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|n|There are a number of non-referenced statements and claims made throughout the article. They could be original research.

}}

valign="top"

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a

}}

{{GATable/item|3b

}}

{{GATable/item|4

}}

{{GATable/item|5

}}

valign="top"

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a

}}

{{GATable/item|6b

}}

{{GATable/item|7|n|There are too many problems here, which, coupled with the poor quality of the lede, render this a fail at this stage I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

}}