Talk:Arthur Sifton/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Just as a heads up, it may take a little bit longer than normal for me to complete the review. I have had gremlins invade my laptop, and my access to another computer is slightly more limited. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please add an access date for ref #98.
 * I've added a fact tag in the Style and political success section. I realize that you show the Republican accusations in the next two paragraphs - that is not what I'm having an issue with. My concern is that the next two paragraphs don't actually give a source for the Republicans accusing the Liberals of "dirty electoral tricks". I can see where they protested various moves by the Liberals, but "dirty electoral tricks" is a bit strongly worded for something with no direct source. The best case scenario is that you have a source that uses this exact wording - then just put the words in quotations and put a source directly after.
 * Oops, sorry, Conservatives, my bad. Anyways, rewording the "dirty electoral tricks" phrasing would work - IMO, it currently sounds unencyclopedic and slightly POV. Perhaps reword it as something like "unlawful electoral practices" or "unethical electoral practices"? If it is reworded in this way, I agree that it does not need a reference.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The image in the Early life section really cramps the text between the the image and the infobox. Could it be moved down to the next section, so that the text isn't sandwiched?
 * This isn't a huge deal, so I'm not going to make a fuss over it. However, please be aware that it will quite possibly be mentioned if you take the article to FAC.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've completed checks of the references, images, and stability. I will begin the prose review and little later this afternoon and should have any other concerns listed by this evening. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose looks great. I'm just waiting on a final respose to the rewording of the one sentence. Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - that was quick! Great work on another very nice article. Everything looks good, so I'm promoting to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've completed checks of the references, images, and stability. I will begin the prose review and little later this afternoon and should have any other concerns listed by this evening. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose looks great. I'm just waiting on a final respose to the rewording of the one sentence. Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - that was quick! Great work on another very nice article. Everything looks good, so I'm promoting to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

 * I've inserted the missing accessdate parameter. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree about the need to cite that one sentence. It is strong language, but so is the language used not only by the Conservatives (not Republicans) but historian David Hall, who is cited calling Sifton's tactics a "falgrant gerrymander" and who, unlike the Conservatives, does not have any incentive to engage in intemperate language on the question.  In any event, I can't cite the specific wording of "dirty electoral tricks", because those were my own words; is there a different wording you could accept as being better supported by the citations that are present? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure I agree with relocating the picture. I've looked at the article on a few different monitors and in a few different browsers, and I'm not sure I see the problem; the image is directly pertinent to the "Early life" section, and I'm loathe to move it to somewhere less relevant. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)