Talk:Barry Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign/GA1

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (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):
 * I don't see many issues here. I went through and checked for spelling and grammar issues, and fixed a couple words. I also added wikilinks to a couple words. You should go through the article again to make sure that any word that a general reader may want to look up is linked (I linked "Midwest" and "front-runner", for example).
 * ✅ Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Too many sources for me to check individually, but a thorough scan of them doesn't raise any red flags for me. All appear to be reliable enough. The OR question-mark is related to the neutrality comment below.
 * ✅ I've addressed the neutrality/OR concern. Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This reads as quite a comprehensive article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The use of the terms "far right wing" and "right wing" may be appropriate, but they should be supported by the references. In the first use of "far right wing", I checked the supporting ref (St. Petersburg Times), and could not find the term. So it's WP:OR from my reading. Go through the article and make sure instances of this are checked.
 * ✅ Should be good to go. Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No problem here.
 * 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):
 * Several of the campaign images have inadequate fair-use rationales: make sure that the copyright holder is specified for non-free images. All images require alt-text. Please improve some of the captions for the images. Rather than just saying "Nelson Rockefeller, c...", give a caption which clearly states the relationship of the image's subject to the article's text.
 * I've added alt-text to all of the images and expanded the captions. Which images specifically had insufficient FUR's? Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The campaign slogan images do not show who the original copyright holder is. The same is true of the Reagan "time for choosing" image. You might ask an editor who specializes in non-free images to take a look at them. I think increasing the specifics of the fair-use rationale for the Reagan image will be enough for GA, but for FAC, you may need more for the other non-free images.AstroCog (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've expanded the fair-use rationale for the Reagan image, and will address the slogan images before FAC. Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: Not many issues. This article is very close to GA status. I'll put it on hold for 7 days.
 * 2) * Improvements made to fix issues. Article will be promoted.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thank you, Astrocog, for your comprehensive and helpful review of the article. Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you found the review helpful, please help review Good Article Nominations, particularly for this month's backlog elimination drive. AstroCog (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)