Jump to content

Talk:Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberal Denialism

[edit]

The content that was parsed and reverted conforms to all rules and goals of providing NPOV encyclopedic content, unless of course one is a liberal denialist spinbot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.39.30 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sylvia Mathews Burwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived source

[edit]

Her archived profile from MetLife shows some of her other associations. Knope7 (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]

Links to articles for future use: Zika funding; More Zika funding; ACA; ACA enrollment

Successor

[edit]

We list the acting directors as Burwell's predecessor and successor as Director of OMB. For consistency, we should use the Acting Secretary of HHS as her successor. The Acting Secretary was in place for weeks. Knope7 (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OCNative: The issue of who to list in info-boxes has been popping up the last few months. Burwell's page lists Acting Directors of OMB, so I am looking at internal consistency for this article. I think this is a bigger issue that would warrant discussion somewhere beyond Tillerson's talk page. Knope7 (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Four Cabinet positions, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General do not list acting occupants. I really don't think 38-year-old HHS or 47-year-old OMB should take precedence over those major departments. Changing the precedent of excluding actings is what should warrant discussion. OCNative (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the template does not include a field for acting. People have been manually adding {{small|(Acting)}}, which is indicative that the template was not meant to include acting occupants. OCNative (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to come across a stated policy on including acting successors in infoboxes. Those four cabinet positions may have consistency but there are dozens of other government positions that do not appear to follow the same convention uniformly, including OMB which affects this article. I am not convinced there is a stated policy on this. IMO, the article should be internally consistent and not including the acting replacement would be inconsistent. Moreover, the argument that acting department heads are of little consequence would have been a stronger argument before Sally Yates served as Acting Attorney General. Knope7 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sylvia Mathews Burwell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]

Review started

[edit]

I'm taking on this review.--Mr. Guye (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

 Already done. Procedural pass. Copyedited by the GOCE member Corinne just prior to nomination.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

 Already done. Procedural pass. Copyedited by the GOCE member Corinne just prior to nomination.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

 Pass

2b. 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).

 Pass

2c. it contains no original research.

 Pass

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

no Not approved Mild violation: see report
 Fixed.

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

 Pass

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

 Pass

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

 Pass

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

 On hold. Do we have a consensus on the title?
There is a consensus. Pass.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

 Pass

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

 Pass

7. Overall assessment. Accepted

Comments

[edit]
Thank you for asking, Mr. Guye. I thought that editors close to the article were not supposed to participate in the review. Is that an incorrect understanding?  – Corinne (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio
[edit]
My understanding is the higher the percentage the more likely there is to be an issue. When I've found issues, the percentage is usually in the 80%-100% range. The percentage here is 29.1% and it says "violation unlikely." The comparisons show that the tool is picking up things like "Secretary of Health and Human Services" and the names of the schools she attended. To be on the safe side, I changed "She is the daughter of," since that got picked up as a possible violation. Can you please clarify what problem you see with the results? Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Knope7: That is why I said mild copyvio; the similarities were somewhat minor but still questionable. I think it is better now.--Mr. Guye (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title dispute
[edit]

Drive-by Comments

[edit]

I'm not reviewing this article, but I just wanted to point out a few quick things:

Werónika (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

The article passes all parts of the Good article criteria. I accept it as a Good Article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

robber theif lyer fruader

[edit]

she stoled 2000 dollars from me lady with all that money a theif place in hell for you lady 2600:6C4A:1C00:13BE:DDFD:2948:4602:1701 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]