Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   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.