Talk:October 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'''I have decided to take this article up to be reviewed for Good Article Status. Review underway.'''--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Posting the criteria from the Good Articles place: A good article is—  :  ; and .   :  ;  ;  <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol> <li>.</li> <li>.</li> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> <li>. </li> </ol> </ol>

Notes from GA criteria
-Mr. Guye (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Review
I will bring up my concerns as I find them. Firstly, I notice that two links are dead: The Star Tribune article "Zinke says he is considering running for House speaker" (number 53) and the ipr article "Texas conservative Jeb Hensarling won't run for House Speaker" (number 89) are both dead. These need to be fixed.--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Stability ✅. No edit war or content dispute ongoing. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

❌ Uh-oh. The link of which John Boehner's photo cites as its source now redirects and lands in a 404. This might become a problem per criteria 2d and 6a. Can this be fixed, or is this not a big deal? --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Not a major concern, still attributed. Photo can be found.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Webster is a member of the Republican Party. Is referring to him as a "third-party" candidate in the infobox warranted?--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Decision
This article is very thoroughly sourced. It appears to be neutral and broad in its coverage and so on. The only real concern I have is the Webster third party issue, but that is more of an infobox issue. I am in opposition to any promotion to WP:FA status without fixing this infobox issue. But I believe that this article does deserve the good article status. I hereby ✅ this article as a good article.---Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)