Talk:North Carolina Attorney General/GA1

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

Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 04:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This one I will do first. NSNW (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2023 (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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

A very well done article, I only have a few things to note for changes. NSNW (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Prose
A few quick nit-bits:

Lede

 * "The office was established in North Carolina's 1776 constitution as an official to be appointed by the North Carolina General Assembly."; I would prefer passive voice in this occasion but it's just my opinion, rewrite this as 'North Carolina's 1776 constitution established the office as an official appointed', and 'to be' seems redundant, so remove that and continue on with the sentence.
 * Done.

History

 * "The title "Attorney General" was used in colonial territory encompassing what became North Carolina as early as 1677"; missing a determiner, change to 'used in the colonial territory'.
 * Done.
 * "The attorneys general in North Carolina and in other British American colonies served as representatives of and exercised the same powers as British attorneys general."; remove the second 'in', as it seems redundant. Also, there's an article misusage with 'as British attorneys general', add a 'the' before 'British'.
 * Done.
 * "Most prosecutions for criminal offences were made the responsibility of district solicitors."; I don't know whether you wrote this in British or American English but since this is an article about an American state I think it would be better to use the American variant of 'offenses' instead of 'offences'.
 * Done.

Powers and duties

 * "They are seventh in line of succession to the governor."; another missing determiner, rewrite it as 'seventh in the line of succession'.
 * Done.

That's all I've got. This took barely a few hours and will get to the other nominations tomorrow. NSNW (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments. Thank you for reviewing this, let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)