Talk:Congressional stagnation in the United States/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lede section is too short.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There is a great number of inline references, but there is a peculiar referencing system used here, where inline citations point directly to the sources (books) rather than to individual references. The main problem with this system is that individual references don't point to page numbers in the books used, so they become virtually impossible to trace for the interested reader, or indeed to verify.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As noted with a tag, the "Increased incumbency advantage as a positive development" needs expansion. More seriously though, in my view, is that the article provides no historical background for its main claim. "Congressional stagnation" is said to have been an increasing tendency since the mid-70s, but there is no historical background to show what the situation was earlier. A graph would have been ideal for this purpose.
 * 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):
 * As mentioned above, a graph would have been useful.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lampman (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lampman (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)