Talk:2009 New York's 20th congressional district special election/GA1

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

I will be reviewing this article. Please contact me with any issues, or if I don't follow up in a week from this post. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose isn't the best, but it seems relatively good. I'll say "aye" to 1a, but I strongly encourage that this go through Peer Review. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Could you please check out the deadlinks in this Checklinks report. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that existed. I'll get on that later tonight.  upstate NYer  02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not sure what the last blue link is on that page, but the link does work. Otherwise, should be all set.  upstate NYer  04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you get a better citation for "Michael S. Pollok, an attorney from Red Hook, announced his candidacy as an independent,[30] but subsequently withdrew.[31]" 31 should be replaced if possible; right now, there is nothing on that website but a redirect. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. The source saying he had considered was completely speculation. I saw 2 faces on the page that definitely did not put their names in the race. Seems he may have done it as a media stunt to get more traffic to his law firm's website.  upstate NYer  15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The "Candidates" section needs more expansion on why "the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees".
 * Perhaps I missed it, but a read of this tells me nothing about why the special election was called for in the first place. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will update and source that later tonight.  upstate NYer  02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ See here.  upstate NYer  04:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I'm unsure if File:James Tedisco.jpg actually needs to be in the article; it doesn't look like it adds much to it. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just messaged the Flickr user to see if they'll freely license this image. I doubt it, but worth a shot.  upstate NYer  20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All issues here have been resolved. I'll be passing this to a GA. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All issues here have been resolved. I'll be passing this to a GA. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)