Talk:Mel Carnahan/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: FountofInterestingInfo (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I aim to get this review done within a week from now. Steelkamp (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp Hello. I hope I don’t come off as rushing you, but it’s been over a week and there hasn’t been a review yet. Please take as much time as you need, but I just want to check in and see if you will be able to review the article soon. Thank you and all the best. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp Hello again. I want you to know that I have taken your early suggestions and implemented them. I was frankly embarrassed at how I didn't catch some of those mistakes. With that in mind, if it's alright with you, I think I'd like a day to do one more thorough read through and make sure every thing is corrected, and to check other things. I still want to go through with the nomination, but I just want a day to catch any errors and make your life a little easier. Thanks again for the work you've done so far. It's been a great bit of help. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Please ping me when you are ready for me to resume reviewing. Steelkamp (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It took a little longer than I expected, but it was worth it. I'm ready for the review to resume. Thank you for your patience. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit busy at the moment. I hope to get to this review in the upcoming week. Steelkamp (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please take as much time as needed. But whenever you have a moment, could you please let me know when you expect to finish the review? I really appreciate your help with this thus far. Thank you. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp Hi. I just want you to know that I’ve been busy this past week, so I haven’t been as communicative as I would have liked, and for that I apologize. But I have made all the edits under the well-written section. Thanks for all the work you’ve done so far. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp I have fixed everything you have suggested under the well-written section. Do you plan to work on the rest of the article soon? FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well written

Lead

• ...state senate... I would link that to Missouri Senate.
• After a lengthy absence... I recommend removing this part of the sentence. It's self evident when it says Carnahan returned to politics in 1980.
• ...state treasurer. I would link this to State Treasurer of Missouri.
• ...winning an election for the job of lieutenant governor... I recommend shortening to winning an election for lieutenant governor...
• ...until he was defeated in a bid for the office of governor in 1984. I think this should mention he was defeated in a primary election, not the general election.
• Governor of Missouri doesn't have to be linked a second time within the lead.
• Carnahan eventually was elected as a state representative... I think this should be expanded to say Carnahan eventually was elected as a state representative for Phelps County, Missouri...
• ...concerning education, and taxes... Remove that comma.
• I think abortion should link to Abortion in Missouri.
• Can some information from the "Early life and education" section be mentioned in the lead. A good rule of thumb is that something from each major section of the article should be mentioned in the lead.
• Generally a maximum of four paragraphs is recommended for the lead as per MOS:LEAD. Since the first two paragraphs are short, they can just be combined.

Early life and education

• ...representing the eight congressional district... This should be changed to ...representing the eighth congressional district... and Missouri's 8th congressional district should be linked here.
• A.S.J. Carnahan should be changed to A. S. J. Carnahan for consistency and as per MOS:INITIALS.
• He moved back there in 1949... I would change this to He moved back to D.C. in 1949...
• Anacostia High School should be linked.
• I don't think the initialism "USAF" needs to be said when its not used in the rest of the article. Same with the initialisms "J.D." and "B.A.". Unless the initialism is more well known than the original name (e.g. FBI), the initialisms don't need to be said.

Early political career

• H.P. Patterson should be changed to H. P. Patterson as per MOS:INITIALS.
• In 1965, Paterson died... Patterson is misspelled here.
• The article is inconsistent in using eighth congressional district versus 8th congressional district.
• ...a move similar to what Governor Joseph Teasdale had done during his first campaign. Can this be expanded to ...a move similar to what Governor Joseph Teasdale had done during his first campaign in 1972. or whatever year it was.
• Earlier that year, Blunt refused to authorize documents Republican Governor John Ashcroft signed while he was out of state, a move some political observers contended had been planned. This confuses me. Why did Blunt refuse to authorize those documents if Ashcroft and Blunt are both republican?
  • I'm still confused about this. How does Blunt refusing to authorize documents signed by a governor when out of state lead to Blunt also refusing to authorize documents signed by an acting governor. Is Blunt's reasoning that no documents can be authorized when signed with the governor out of state, whether the documents are signed by the governor or acting governor?
    • From what I've researched, it boiled down to a whole bunch of legal disputes. For Ashcroft, it was because he had been out of state and faxed the documents over, which brought up questions relating to the state constitution. For Carnahan, the case was in court at the time, and thus Blunt refused to sign it as to not interfere with any ongoing procedures. I've clarified this in the article, but if there needs to be any more clarification, let me know.

Governor of Missouri

• Some of Schoemehl's supporters tried to persuade him to run against Senator Kit Bond in the 1992 U.S. Senate race. Is "him" referring to Carnahan or Schoemehl?
• Can it be explained what the "Hancock Amendment" is?
• In 1997, lawmakers agreed to remove the state's grocery tax and reduction on taxes for private pensions... This is ambiguous. I recommend rewording to In 1997, lawmakers agreed to remove the state's grocery tax and reduce the tax on private pensions... or something similar, otherwise it can be read as removing the reduction on taxes for private pensions.

Death and aftermath

• No comments

Awards and recognitions

• No comments

Personal life

• No comments

Verifiable with no original research

• I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector and didn't find any copyright violations there.
• The amendment was defeated by a nearly 40-point margin. Shouldn't that be a 36-point margin? The source says the % yes was 31.8, which means the % no was 68.2 and the difference was 68.2 - 31.8 = 36.4, which rounds to 36%. Also, that reference should have a page number added.
• Spot checks done on sources 1, 2, 40, 42, 43, 80, 81, 91, 122, 123, 165, 184. I found no discrepancies.
• Source 42 should have agency=Associated Press added. That won't hold me from promoting to GA though.

Broad in its coverage

• From reading the Missouri State Manual entry for Carnahan, I believe this article covers all the major things to say about Carnahan.

Illustrated, if possible

Image copyright is all ok. The only problem is with the alt texts. There is no alt text for the infobox image. With the rest of the images, the alt text could do with some improvement. Generally, its bad if the alt text is essentially repeating the caption. I would change the alt text in those instances to "refer to caption", as it is for the example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Captions and nearby text.

General

All my comments have been addressed, and the source review turned up nothing to fix, so I am going to pass this review now. Thank you for bearing with me for so long. Congratulations on the new GA! Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for your help. It was all worth it in the end. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)