Talk:Austin Meehan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Comments will be forthcoming over the next couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Concerns addressed.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All concerns addressed.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * No source formatting issues
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Sources are reliable; "ancestry.com", which I wouldnt' have usually accepted, looks like it's just a hosting site for reliable primary documents.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Spotchecks raised a couple of issues, now cleared up.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous material
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No stability issues.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No caption issues.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All comments addressed, passing shortly.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All comments addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

 * I wouldn't start a paragraph with "He played..."; name the subject in a new paragraph
 * "Financial success gave him independence" this is ambiguous as written; without the second half of the sentence, it sounds like he's independent from his parents. Any way to clarify what "independence" was in this case without straying into OR?
 * AFAIK "Politico" is colloquial; how about the more usual "early political career" as a section title?
 * Can you clarify what Meehan means by "dead heads"? The best known use of the term is for these poeple...
 * "win the next election" which election?
 * I meant to what elected office/body
 * I think he meant the whole ticket, not just one office. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Meehan and Crossan reconciled," perhaps "Meehan and Crossan later reconciled,", for flow?
 * "bolting the party"; "bolting" is odd, here, to me. I'd suggest simply "leaving".
 * " leader of the 35th ward": "leader" is ambiguous; do you mean councilman?
 * "he tried for the": I'd prefer "ran" over "tried", given that this is an election.
 * "noting that" is too heavy a use of Wikipedia's voice, as it implies it was a fact. If we're providing inline attribution, I'd recommend "stated" or "said" or "wrote".
 * "allegations of insider corruption began to attach to Meehan's name" seems rather contorted. "Allegations of insider corruption were made about Meehan" or equivalent would be better.
 * Last sentence of "Sheriff" has two changes of direction; "nonetheless", then "but". Would flow better if broken up.
 * Thank you for your comments so far. I've made these changes, which I think should answer your points. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Looking forward to the rest of them! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just one reply above. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Resuming, "mounted another anti-corruption campaign" implies that it was a campaign against corruption, rather than an election campaign in which corruption was the major theme.
 * "100,000 vote majorities" implies multiple elections; which ones are you referring to?
 * "blasted" is verging on journalese.
 * Do we know why Meehan didn't run for a third term?
 * "Meehan backed the primary victors..." maybe clarify with "in the general election"?
 * "Harold Stassen, was selected..." in this case, the reverse; clarify that this is a primary.
 * "honored statewide by being named" why not simply "named"?
 * Spotchecked Madonna and McLarnon; I'm not seeing stuff about the 1951 election on page 62
 * That source also has a considerable amount of detail that it wouldn't hurt to add to the article. At 1300 words I think it meets my own arbitrary minimum for a GA, so I'm not going to fail it if you don't, but it's all there in a single place so it shouldn't be hard.
 * Some of the paraphrasing is a little too close for comfort. " quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the source, "quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the article. I'd suggest double-checking anything that isn't plain statement of fact. I can't check very many more sources; most require a subscription.
 * Spotchecked 26, looks okay.
 * I made these changes, including adding some details from the article you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Two final points, looking at the lead; a) it's a bit short, and b) the phrase "power broker" does not appear in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * True. I made that change and fleshed out the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't like "political boss" much, either; what does the term even mean? I think any meaning in it is entirely redundant to the final lead sentence. In the interests of getting this through quickly, I have simply trimmed that fragment, so that I can pass this. If you disagree, we can continue to discuss it, but I really think that based on what you have in the body, "influential member" and "unofficial head of the Republican party" is as far as you can go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)