Jump to content

Talk:Austin Meehan/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this. Comments will be forthcoming over the next couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Concerns addressed.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All concerns addressed.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    No source formatting issues
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Sources are reliable; "ancestry.com", which I wouldnt' have usually accepted, looks like it's just a hosting site for reliable primary documents.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Spotchecks raised a couple of issues, now cleared up.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No extraneous material
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No stability issues.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No caption issues.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All comments addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

[edit]
  • I wouldn't start a paragraph with "He played..."; name the subject in a new paragraph
  • "Financial success gave him independence" this is ambiguous as written; without the second half of the sentence, it sounds like he's independent from his parents. Any way to clarify what "independence" was in this case without straying into OR?
  • AFAIK "Politico" is colloquial; how about the more usual "early political career" as a section title?
  • Can you clarify what Meehan means by "dead heads"? The best known use of the term is for these poeple...
  • "win the next election" which election?
    I meant to what elected office/body
    I think he meant the whole ticket, not just one office. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meehan and Crossan reconciled," perhaps "Meehan and Crossan later reconciled,", for flow?
  • "bolting the party"; "bolting" is odd, here, to me. I'd suggest simply "leaving".
  • " leader of the 35th ward": "leader" is ambiguous; do you mean councilman?
  • "he tried for the": I'd prefer "ran" over "tried", given that this is an election.
  • "noting that" is too heavy a use of Wikipedia's voice, as it implies it was a fact. If we're providing inline attribution, I'd recommend "stated" or "said" or "wrote".
  • "allegations of insider corruption began to attach to Meehan's name" seems rather contorted. "Allegations of insider corruption were made about Meehan" or equivalent would be better.
  • Last sentence of "Sheriff" has two changes of direction; "nonetheless", then "but". Would flow better if broken up.
  • Resuming, "mounted another anti-corruption campaign" implies that it was a campaign against corruption, rather than an election campaign in which corruption was the major theme.
  • "100,000 vote majorities" implies multiple elections; which ones are you referring to?
  • "blasted" is verging on journalese.
  • Do we know why Meehan didn't run for a third term?
  • "Meehan backed the primary victors..." maybe clarify with "in the general election"?
  • "Harold Stassen, was selected..." in this case, the reverse; clarify that this is a primary.
  • "honored statewide by being named" why not simply "named"?
  • Spotchecked Madonna and McLarnon; I'm not seeing stuff about the 1951 election on page 62
  • That source also has a considerable amount of detail that it wouldn't hurt to add to the article. At 1300 words I think it meets my own arbitrary minimum for a GA, so I'm not going to fail it if you don't, but it's all there in a single place so it shouldn't be hard.
  • Some of the paraphrasing is a little too close for comfort. " quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the source, "quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the article. I'd suggest double-checking anything that isn't plain statement of fact. I can't check very many more sources; most require a subscription.
  • Spotchecked 26, looks okay.
    I made these changes, including adding some details from the article you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coemgenus: Looks good. Two final points, looking at the lead; a) it's a bit short, and b) the phrase "power broker" does not appear in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I made that change and fleshed out the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coemgenus: To be honest, I don't like "political boss" much, either; what does the term even mean? I think any meaning in it is entirely redundant to the final lead sentence. In the interests of getting this through quickly, I have simply trimmed that fragment, so that I can pass this. If you disagree, we can continue to discuss it, but I really think that based on what you have in the body, "influential member" and "unofficial head of the Republican party" is as far as you can go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]