Talk:2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The LEAD is too long and includes information not found elsewhere in the article (does not summarize)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Some statements lack supporting citations (e.g. "The Republican primary attracted national attention, especially following Trump's endorsement of incumbent Senator Luther Strange")
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Given other issues in the article I did not do research to see if this article satisfies this criteria as compared to other GA/FA.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The Moore picture is really low quality. Given his profile I would be surprised if a better picture isn't available.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Lack of response to confirmation of interest means that detailed comments were not given.

Discussion

Can Nick2crosby or other article editor confirm that they are interested in going through the GA review process for this article? I have never done a GA review of an article under WP:ACDS so I'm not sure how they will play out in this review but am willing to do this review if there's an interested editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]