Talk:Bank War/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:
As notes on an initial read through:
May be a good idea to do one more scrub for missing Wikilinks. In the lead and first section I'm seeing agrarian economy, US Senate, paper money, National Republicans, doctrine of implied powers, Protective tariff, yeomanry ... others random examples: Strict constructionism, limited government, United States Department of the Treasury, Supreme Court, Supermajority

I added several links where appropriate, and see that you did the same as well. Thank you for that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some colloquial phrasing that could probably be improved: "thrown to the House of Representatives", "campaign against the Bank had triumphed",

I replaced the first part with "decided in." I don't see anything wrong with the second. It doesn't sound particularly colloquial to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I find the fairly liberal use of scare quotes a little curious. So, for example is something like "Jackson and Reform" supposed to be ironic? And I realize that the Bank War isn't actually a war, but I'm not sure that's necessary to qualify with quotes. A trade war is also not a real war, but merely a term, although it's not necessary to qualify that whenever it's mentioned I don't feel.

It's not ironic. It was a slogan used for Jackson in 1828. It's in quotes to show that it didn't come from Wikipedia. I agree that war didn't need to be in quotes and so I got rid of that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US or U.S. - Gotta pick one and stick to it.

I believe I added periods to all of these. You can check if you're so inclined. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:
This may be getting into a level of nit-picky that is higher than GA, but I personally prefer when I write to have as much consistency as possible in citation format. So things like consistency in using ISBN 13, and I usually link not just the author, but also the publisher if there is an article for them, which it looks like most of these are pretty big name publishers that have their own articles.

ISBNs didn't come into existence until about 1970. Many of these books were published before then and therefore don't have them. Many other sources are journal articles which of course don't have ISBNs. There are things called OCLC numbers that are used to identify pre-1970s books. In the next day or so, I'll fix some ISNBs and add more OCLCs.

In my experience, I haven't seen anybody link publisher names. I've never done it at any articles I've edited. I've successfully nominated 3 FACs and it's never been a problem for any of them. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Well that's interesting. No worries. It's just something I've always done I guess. GMG ^talk 10:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Auto copyvio text check is good. Y

Spot check results for text: Y
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):
Is it neutral?
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:
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 copyright:
File:Old Hickory and Bully Nick.jpg - Harper's Weekly from 1834. Y

File:Second Bank of the United States front.jpg - Modern image, searches don't seem to pick up any preexisting versions. Y

File:Andrew jackson head.jpg - Official work US Govt. Y

File:Nicholas Biddle by William Inman.jpg - 1830s, confirmed by source, old enough for death date not to matter. Y

File:General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster.jpg - Changed date to 1833 per source, but still good. Y

File:LouisMcLane55.jpg - Updated info, original rationale of "took it from a govt website" isn't great, but it's still old enough to not be problematic. Y

File:Henry Clay-headshot.jpg - Plenty old. Y

File:3a17480r.jpg - Plenty old, but also plenty degraded. It's not gonna sink a review, but I would highly recommend going with a better quality image from c:Category:Daniel Webster. Y

File:King Andrew the First (political cartoon of President Andrew Jackson).jpg Plenty old. Y

I fixed this, but as a general rule, avoid using px for images, and instead use upright=

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Looks good.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Hey Display name 99. I think that's about all I've got in me for today. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or if I'm unclear on something. GMG ^talk 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, thank you for your review. I've left several comments above. I should be finished implementing everything you've suggested in about another day. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, I've dealt with everything you've suggested. Every book source now has either an ISBN or an OCLC. If you see a source that doesn't, it should mean that it's a journal article and therefore would not have either. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Good job on this one. GMG ^talk 17:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]