Talk:1963 Philadelphia municipal election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 16:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article has the same writing style as the 1951 Philadelphia municipal election, 1955 Philadelphia municipal election, and 1959 Philadelphia municipal election which are current FA and GA status.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have looked into the 23 references on the page and all of them contain the information that is in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article covers all of the elections that happened in 1963. The mayoral and city council sections are reasonably long.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no political or personal bias in this article in favor of Republicans or Democrats.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The last edits made to this page (excluding mine) were made in January and the page has been in its current state for months.

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

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

   The article has multiple images clearly showing the results of the election by ward (interesting that you were able to find that information) for the mayoral and city council elections.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Looking at this page I see no difference in quality between it and the previous municipal election pages that you have brought up to GA and FA status. There is a neutral point of view, an adequate image amount, reasonable long, all of the references contain the information in the article, and there are no glaring grammatical or informational mistakes present. Incredible work you have done here @Coemgenus: