Jump to content

Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}
{{Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal/GA1}}
{{Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal/GA1}}

==Did you know nomination==
{{Template:Did you know nominations/New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal}}

Revision as of 20:39, 2 December 2022

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

Picking this one up. Review to follow after the bot kicks in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Still curious as to what motivated you to take it on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk04:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Wehwalt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 20:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Gerda Arendt: Great article! Though just a mention but you aren't allowed to put links to other websites (such as wikitionary) in your hooks. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]