Talk:Greg Gianforte/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 05:34, 6 March 2020 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are no glaring grammatical or spelling mistakes and I have edited any existing minor problems with the article such as the overuse of the abbreviations U.S. and Rep.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * All of the claims on this article, including all controversial claims, are fully referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article covers his entire life from his business activities to political career in a reasonable length. I would also like to congratulate whoever did it for fleshing out the sections on his congressional campaigns as most representative articles only include a short blurb that amounts to "he ran for reelection and got x votes for x percent".
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I am impressed by the neutrality of this article. The sections on his creationist beliefs and his journalist assault are not biased towards or against him.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The majority of edits for the past few months are less than 50 bytes excluding bot edits or the addition of his gubernatorial campaign.
 * 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):
 * A great selection of images from election results, old images of him, his congressional photos, and his mugshot after the journalist assault.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is suitable for GA status. Its coverage of his political career is fully fleshed out with all of his campaigns being reasonable long, his business activities are adequately summarized, there are no spelling or grammatical mistakes, there is no bias towards or against him especially in the controversial sections, and I see nothing else that would prevent it from reaching GA status.


 * For a GA, the lead was disorganized and weak before I revamped it. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)