Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow after the bot kicks in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
An expertly crafted article by an experienced editor writing on an esoteric subject. I could just pass it as is, but some minor stuff to prove for the record that I did read it, and since it is probably bound for FAC.
- Could not find any spelling errors or duplicate links
- "Dr. Frank A. Vizetelly" We don't normally use academic titles (MOS:DR)
- In this case, the legislature was using him as an expert and so I'm trying to show why he was (in their view) qualified.
- Source review:
- Provide access dates for the URLs. This will help the archive bot if the links decay.
- Consider adding a via=newspapers.com cards
- Do not abbreviate New Jersey (MOS:ACRO)
- Where the name of the newspaper does not include the location, we normally add a location card to the reference. (WP:CITE)
- Any reason why The Evening Courier is the only redlinked newspaper?
- I think I've gotten everything. Thanks for taking this on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Still curious as to what motivated you to take it on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think I've gotten everything. Thanks for taking this on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
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:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Some MOS issues, but not in these sections, so okay
- 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:
- 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:
- 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):
- 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:
- 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.