Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • First paragraph, Hensley & Co section, "In 1955, Hensley founded the beer distributorship to have his own name" is oddly worded.
   • Second paragraph, Hensley & Co section, "In 1981, Hensley hired his new son-in-law John McCain, recently married to his daughter Cindy, Vice President of Public Relations for Hensley & Co." I think that you mean that John was the new VP, but they way this is worded makes it sound like Cindy was the VP.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • What makes Ref #2 (Wargs) reliable? Especially since the website itself says "The following material on the immediate ancestry of Cindy McCain should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative..."?
   • Ref #23 (Dawn Gilbertson) doesn't go to the correct page.
   • Ref #25 (Deaths Elsewhere) deadlinks.
   • Ref #26 (Cathryn Creno) doesn't go to the correct page.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a nice article, but a few prose and reference issues, so I am placing the review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review. I've tried to address all your comments:

• The two prose instances have been reworded, hopefully they are clear now.
• Of the three cite link problems, the first has been changed to a working free URL. The second was always behind a paywall, but I've adjusted the URL so that it will go to the article tease (WaPo archives are a bit unstable in this regard). The third has moved behind a paywall, I've adjusted the URL and indicated 'fee required' in the cite.
• Wargs.com is not considered reliable enough for use in FA articles. But it does get used in GA articles and others sometimes. I've used it here because it's the only source that gives the month/day of Hensley's birth, the names of his parents, and some of the bio background on his first wife. I've modified the footnote to include these reasons, and to include the site's disclaimer that you quoted above. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that works for the Wargs site, and everything else looks good, so I'm passing this article to GA status. Have you perhaps tried e-mailing the author of the Wargs site to see where he got his information? That may be a good way to find the information in a more reliable place - honestly, references are either reliable or they're not, it doesn't matter if the article is going for GA or FA, but with the inclusion of the disclaimer it just squeaks by for me. I would really prefer a better source, and you'll probably find one by going through the author of the site. Just a suggestion... Other than that, good work! Dana boomer (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy is a mess with respect to WP ... the Wargs guy apparently is believed by some, controversial to others, and the only site I've seen blessed in FAC is the NEHGS site, but they only cover a few famous people outside their subscription site. Anyway, I'll keep looking, and thanks again for the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]