Talk:Al Gore/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Harvard section, this sentence ---> "1968 also marked the year that Gore became deeply involved in politics, particularly after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.", the start of the sentence might have to be re-written. In the Vietnam War and journalism section, this sentence ---> "Gore has stated that he finally enlisted in the army for two reasons", should have semicolon not a period. Same section, a sentence should not start with "And", per this ---> "And his editor for The Castle Courier, Michael Roche, also stated that "anybody who knew Al Gore in Vietnam knows he could have sat on his butt and he didn't". In the Son's 1989 accident, 1992 election, and first book section, why is there quotations in this sentence ---> "six-year-old Albert suddenly bolted from his father's hand and was hit by a car. Their youngest child flew 30 ft. and slid along the pavement 20 more"?
Done. Please let me know if these tweaks suffice or if others are needed. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
All dates in the article either need to be linked or unlinked. In the Vietnam War and journalism section, it would be best if "1970 Senate election" is linked once, per here. In the Vanderbilt and journalism section, link "The Tennessean" once. In the House and Senate section, "Dec. 9, 1991" needs to be ---> "December 9, 1991". In the Vice presidency section, "10 July 1992" needs to be ---> "July 10, 1992". As for any other dates that are not properly formatted. Sane section, why is "2008" linked? Same section, "Forbes magazine" needs to italicized, per here. Same section, "Earth day" doesn't need to be italicize. Same section, the second mention of "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" needs to be italicized.
Done. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Note: For the future, please don't leave a space between a ref., it makes the article look bad. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. Also, References should come after the parentheses.
Done. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):
In the Second presidential run (2000) section, is there a source for this ---> "The 2000 election is the subject of a 2008 made-for-TV movie directed by Jay Roach, produced by, and starring Kevin Spacey called Recount. It premiered on the HBO cable network on May 25, 2008"?
I've added a reference. Once we've clarified the format for references, I will adjust that as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is complete. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get started on these. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Classicfilms for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! Thank you ThinkBlue for your hard work on this article. Regards -Classicfilms (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]