Talk:1880 Greenback National Convention/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

, I will undertake a comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. In the meantime, please feel free to leave me comments or questions regarding this review. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects from each of the article's sections. With this in mind, I suggest adding some content from the "Background" section. Perhaps mention that the party had arisen, mostly in the West and South, as a response to the economic depression that followed the Panic of 1873 and why the party came to be known as the Greenback party.
 * For the same reason listed above, there should be a description of the three front runners as they are prominently profiled in the "Candidates" section: Weaver, Butler, and Wright.
 * With the exception of the "Background" and "Candidates" sections needing to be included in the lede, the existing summarizes the remainder of the article's content well, and I have no other issues that need to be addressed here.
 * I also suggest adding the number of delegates in the lede.

1 Background 1.1 Origins
 * Link Greenback Party in its first mention in the article content section. Linking should happen once in the summary, and once in the content per Manual of Style/Linking.
 * In the first paragraph, "many in both parties" should probably explicitly mention Democrat and Republican at first mention, as this may not be clear to non-American readers.
 * Other than these minor suggestions, this section reads well and its internal citations are verifiable.

1.2 Party split
 * This section reads well and its internal citations are verifiable.

2 Candidates
 * I made several minor tweaks in this section and provided several wiki-links per Manual of Style/Linking. Please let me know if you disagree with any of this minor edits.
 * All images are free, and therefore, appropriate for inclusion in this article.

2.1 Weaver 2.2 Butler 2.3 Wright 2.4 Other contenders
 * Does the Lause citation also cover the first sentence of this paragraph?
 * Other than that, I made some minor tweaks. In addition, I find that all images are free, the internal citations are verifiable, and these subsections read well as is.

3 Convention 3.1 Preliminaries 3.2 Reunification 3.3 Platform
 * All the above subsections read well, and are well-sourced with adequate and verifiable internal citations.

3.4 Nominations and balloting
 * The table is formatted properly, but I suggest adding an internal citation within the table, even though it is clear that the table's information is internally-cited within the prose.

4 Aftermath
 * The table is sourced and formatted appropriately.

, I've completed my review and found now major errors or needs for rewriting. The lede needs some additions, and I made some minor tweaks throughout the article. You've done a spectacular job documenting this otherwise little-known party and its convention. It's been a privilege reviewing this article and I look forward to your responses. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the thorough review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I'll work on these fixes over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think I've addressed all of your points. Thanks for the advice on the lede -- that's usually the weakest part of my articles, and this one reads much better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , everything here looks in order. Thank you for incorporating my suggestions in such a timely manner; and thank you for all your tremendous work on this article. It is hereby a privilege to pass this to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)