Talk:Rob Howard (politician)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: maclean (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Background "Prior to his election to the legislature, Howard worked in property management. He served as a City Councillor in Richmond, British Columbia for seven years. He was first elected to the Richmond City Council in the October 2001 by-election as a member of the Richmond Non-Partisan Association and was re-elected in the November 2002 and 2005 civic elections as a member of the Richmond First Party. He sat on council as an independent starting in 2006. While on council he advocated in favour of casino expansion, locating the Olympic speed-skating oval in Richmond, and developing a convention centre." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Provincial politics "A member of the in the BC Liberal Party, he replaced retiring BC Liberal Olga Ilich in that riding, by winning the riding in the 2009 provincial election. While his party formed a majority government, Howard was not included in the cabinet but was appointed to several committees, including the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the first two sessions, and Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in the third and fourth session. Howard introduced one piece of legislation, the Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009 (Pr 402), to retroactively restore that organization's corporate status. Howard did not seek re-election during the 2013 provincial election and was replaced by BC Liberal Teresa Wat." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, few points between 2009-13 not summarized. ) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Background "Prior to his election to the legislature, Howard worked in property management. He served as a City Councillor in Richmond, British Columbia for seven years. He was first elected to the Richmond City Council in the October 2001 by-election as a member of the Richmond Non-Partisan Association and was re-elected in the November 2002 and 2005 civic elections as a member of the Richmond First Party. He sat on council as an independent starting in 2006. While on council he advocated in favour of casino expansion, locating the Olympic speed-skating oval in Richmond, and developing a convention centre." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Provincial politics "A member of the in the BC Liberal Party, he replaced retiring BC Liberal Olga Ilich in that riding, by winning the riding in the 2009 provincial election. While his party formed a majority government, Howard was not included in the cabinet but was appointed to several committees, including the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the first two sessions, and Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in the third and fourth session. Howard introduced one piece of legislation, the Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009 (Pr 402), to retroactively restore that organization's corporate status. Howard did not seek re-election during the 2013 provincial election and was replaced by BC Liberal Teresa Wat." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done "Rob Howard is a Canadian politician who was elected to the 39th Parliament of British Columbia as the Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from the riding of Richmond Centre." Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies:  Done Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons:  Done Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

WP:BLP:

Check for WP:BLP: Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE):  Done Check for Tone:  Done Check for Balance (WP:COAT):  Done Check for Reliable sources:  Done Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES):  Done Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE):  Done Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP):  Done Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY):  Done Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS):  Done Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL):  Done Check for Presumption in favor of privacy:  Done Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM):  Done Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE):  Done Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB):  Done Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF):  Done Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E):  Done Check for Persons accused of crime[ (WP:BLPCRIME):  Done Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):  Done

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images (None)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

Maclean, I'm very happy and inspired to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the Provincial politics in the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 08:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Response from maclean25

• I boosted the lead as recommended [1] Let me know if you find it too detailed - there's a few details I can skim off. maclean (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! I think it's fine now. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)