Jump to content

Talk:1973 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1973 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 16:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) As below, you could make a more coherent narrative using only text rather than bury details in confusing lists. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Your list of candidates passes MOS:LIST but I find it needless. This wasn't a real primary and you discuss the potential contenders well enough in the prose. I'm not going to impose my preference, of course. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) My one qualm (but not an issue for GA) is that this exclusively relies on primary sources. I might question if the subject is notable since it's all local coverage. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Newspapers pass as coverage. It would be better if we had a history book about this election. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The article says what the sources support. You could have mentioned that not only did Young become the longest-serving GOP member of the House, he later became the longest serving in all of Congress. You cited a source which said so (Politico) but you didn't add that claim. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) COPYVIO detector says it's fine. I don't see any close paraphrasing of sources that concerns me. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) There isn't an aspect of this that wasn't covered. The only thing you could have mentioned were the other men in the plane crash but that's not the focus of this article. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Seems straightforward to me. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    No bias read. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No heavy editing volume here. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All the images are public domain or claim to be mere graphics un-copyright-able; it seems good enough. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The same simplistic words mentioned above don't really need explanation. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Again, with nothing but local coverage I wouldn't seek an FA review but I think it passes GA. I'm very glad you may such good use of snippets from newspapers. It made my job of verifying much easier.

Discussion

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.