Talk:New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow after the bot kicks in. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

An expertly crafted article by an experienced editor writing on an esoteric subject. I could just pass it as is, but some minor stuff to prove for the record that I did read it, and since it is probably bound for FAC.


 * Could not find any spelling errors or duplicate links
 * "Dr. Frank A. Vizetelly" We don't normally use academic titles (MOS:DR)
 * In this case, the legislature was using him as an expert and so I'm trying to show why he was (in their view) qualified.


 * Source review:
 * Provide access dates for the URLs. This will help the archive bot if the links decay.
 * Consider adding a via=newspapers.com cards
 * Do not abbreviate New Jersey (MOS:ACRO)
 * Where the name of the newspaper does not include the location, we normally add a location card to the reference. (WP:CITE)
 * Any reason why The Evening Courier is the only redlinked newspaper?
 * I think I've gotten everything. Thanks for taking this on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still curious as to what motivated you to take it on. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Some MOS issues, but not in these sections, so okay
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 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):
 * 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:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: