Talk:1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article and will add my comments below.

This is a fascinating article, very well written. I have a few suggestions.

I have combined some of the paragraphs in the section to try to reduce the choppiness of the read. There are two sections that are especially problematic. The Campaign section is made up of many very short paragraphs. It does not flow.

And the Election and aftermath is very choppy and also seems long. Perhaps it could be broken into two sections, or give it some subheadings.

In general, if you could add some subheadings to the sections, it would help the uninitiated reader, as it is easy to get lost in all the detail.

Xtzou (Talk) 21:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job! One of those "truth is greater than fiction" stories. My concerns have been address. Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Well written

B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!