Talk:Alton B. Parker/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 11 June 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * A few spots where the prose could use a bit of improvement for clarity and a few spots I think some links would help[ with understanding
 * 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:
 * Lead:
 * Suggest "Kingston, New York" rather than plain Kingston, as a non-American might think Kingston Jamaica immediately.
 * "In 1904, he defeated liberal publisher William Randolph Hearst as the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, opposing popular incumbent Republican President Theodore Roosevelt." is a bit confusing. Suggest "In 1904, he defeated liberal publisher William Randolph Hearst for the Democratic Party ..." and then break the second phrase off into a complete sentence with a bit more information, if possible.
 * Judicial career:
 * link/explanation for "social reform legislation"?
 * The source offers only one example, which I've added to the article.
 * "to be killed by electric chair." think there is an article missing here... "an electric chair"?
 * I think "death by electric chair" or "executed by electric chair" at least are common phrases, e.g., , , . Tweaked this.
 * Presidential nomination:
 * "and the powerful Tammany Hall political machine" suggest pointing out that the Tammany Hall machine was a New York machine, thus why it supported Parker.
 * ✅, though Hearst was also a New Yorker; Tammany just hated him
 * Link for "Wisconsin State Representative"?
 * Idiomatic - isn't it usually "Senator from Delaware"? And link?
 * Link for "particularly that of currency standards"? Non-Americans (hell, most Americans, honestly) won't know or remember that episode of American history.
 * This is linked a sentence or two later with free silver; I don't know that we have another article to point this one to.
 * "Free silver" or "free silver"?
 * Campaign:
 * Links for the Phillippines and independence for that country? Also any links for the "Turkish and Moroccan affairs"?
 * Linked Philippines. Philippine independence didn't come until 45 years later, so I'm not sure there's a good article to link to for Roosevelt's refusal to set a date (linking to History of the Philippines (1946–1965) would be a little confusing here). My best guess is that the Turkish event Parker is referring to is related to the Miss Stone Affair, but I'm hesitant to guess here; the source summarized Parker's speech without elaborating on what he meant. (I'm similarly unsure on the Moroccan part.)
 * Although it probably appears obviously, need to state what the numbers are for "On November 8, Roosevelt won in a landslide of 7,630,457 to Parker's 5,083,880."
 * If you're repeating links from the lead in the body (as you do with Solid South) you need to be consistent - you didn't link "electoral votes"
 * Why the emphasis on "two" in "in which voters had two first-rate candidates"?
 * Don't know; this is text from another editor. I'm guessing this bothers you, so removed.
 * Later life:
 * Link for "organized labor"?
 * Bad connection between these two sentences - can it be improved? "The United States Supreme Court found for Loewe, ruling that the union had been acting in restraint of interstate commerce. Parker served as the president of the American Bar Association from 1906 to 1907."
 * reordered.
 * Other:
 * Does the 1904 further reading bit REALLY help us understand the subject better? It's quite likely outdated and biased and not really worth featuring. Suggest removing.
 * Wasn't the decision somewhere that Find A Grave isn't reliable? Why should we link to it?
 * Looks good mostly, just a few spots. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your time and suggestions. I think I've addressed all the above, save for one or two minor points where I've responded instead. Just let me know if you'd like any further work on any of these points, though. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOoks good. Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the emphasis on "two" in "in which voters had two first-rate candidates"?
 * Don't know; this is text from another editor. I'm guessing this bothers you, so removed.
 * Later life:
 * Link for "organized labor"?
 * Bad connection between these two sentences - can it be improved? "The United States Supreme Court found for Loewe, ruling that the union had been acting in restraint of interstate commerce. Parker served as the president of the American Bar Association from 1906 to 1907."
 * reordered.
 * Other:
 * Does the 1904 further reading bit REALLY help us understand the subject better? It's quite likely outdated and biased and not really worth featuring. Suggest removing.
 * Wasn't the decision somewhere that Find A Grave isn't reliable? Why should we link to it?
 * Looks good mostly, just a few spots. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your time and suggestions. I think I've addressed all the above, save for one or two minor points where I've responded instead. Just let me know if you'd like any further work on any of these points, though. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOoks good. Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good mostly, just a few spots. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your time and suggestions. I think I've addressed all the above, save for one or two minor points where I've responded instead. Just let me know if you'd like any further work on any of these points, though. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOoks good. Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOoks good. Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)