# Talk:Ann Rivers

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)
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)

Same here.   It looks pretty good overall.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay... I've been very busy with work/school. Thanks for the patience. PrairieKid (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


### 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)

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

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)


### GA criteria final checklist
Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria.
Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Added image of the I-5 bridge and of Don Benton.
Cool. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Updating, Has three images. No non-free images, so no article-specific use rationales are required.  North8000 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


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

(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