Talk:Ann Rivers

Ann Rivers has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 5, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Ann Rivers received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a GA review of this article

Great! I'm looking forward to working with you. Cheers. PrairieKid (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It looks pretty good overall. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay... I've been very busy with work/school. Thanks for the patience. PrairieKid (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

A couple of thoughts / questions regarding the Benton incident material. Two revolve around current reference #27. First, while this is a problem with the source is that #25 & #27 are the same article from the same source, but two different web pages where they give two different dates. (April 20th & 21st) #27 is just the first few paragraphs from it and then links to the other page (#25). Second is that #27 is given to support the "hypocrite" statement but there is nothing about that in there. That leaves only #26, an op ed piece which actually makes the accusation to support the statement that "Some have labeled Benton a hypocrite" which is pretty weak, particularly for a BLP situation, and also a primary source for the statement in the article. (all of the references numbers are the numbers as of this writing) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I'll change the source, and rearrange the content to better represent the information. PrairieKid (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Many have come out in support of Rivers, who claims that Benton was harassing her and calling her a "weird, weird lady" prior to the altercation." looks unsourced. Particularly important as the statement is that there was much support for a strong accusation against Benton. Particularly important in a wp:blp situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Fixed above.

The lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. There was some info or more detailed info in the lead that was not in the body. I added that material to the body. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria.

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has one image. It is a free image so no article-specific use rationale is required. I think one is sufficient, but 1-2 more would be better. Maybe a picture of the I-5 proposed bridge? North8000 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find, but I don't know if there is anything out there. PrairieKid (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added image of the I-5 bridge and of Don Benton.

Cool. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating, Has three images. No non-free images, so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! Nice article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer[reply]

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

(I have "duplicated" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article! Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer[reply]