Talk:Austin Meehan/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this. Comments will be forthcoming over the next couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No stability issues.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All comments addressed, passing shortly.
- Pass or Fail:
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)
- I meant to what elected office/body
- "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.
- Thank you for your comments so far. I've made these changes, which I think should answer your points. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Looking forward to the rest of them! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Just one reply above. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments so far. I've made these changes, which I think should answer your points. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Looking forward to the rest of them! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- True. I made that change and fleshed out the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @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)
- Works for me. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @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)
- True. I made that change and fleshed out the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)