Talk:1927 Chicago mayoral election/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I started with the image review (big surprise if you know what kind of work I do here) and found rather a lot of problems with File:Williamdever.jpg - you can't really claim something is out of copyright by way of PD-US-1923 and give the year as 2006.

This doesn't block promotion as I have removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement. The other two candidate photos are... very mediocre, but this isn't FPC.

So, criteria
 * 1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes, it's quite well-writen and clear. Nice work.

As far as I can tell, yes.
 * 2. Verifiable with no original research:


 * 3. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Yes, though the section "Republican primary" feels rushed, without even a mention of Thompson. I'm sure that the idea was that he was already covered, but... seems like a brief comment should be made on him there.

I think so. All the main candidates are covered neutrally.
 * 4Neutral:

Standard heavy editing you see before a GA run, but nothing that constitutes a dispute.
 * 5 Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * 6 Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The problem above beside, yes. The images made for this article are very good, by the way, it's only the historical ones that have any issues.

I'd say this is a clear. ✅. Minor issues acceptable at GA. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)