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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

Posting the criteria from the Good Articles place:

A good article is—

Well-written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

^[2]

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[3]
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[4]
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[5] and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[6]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[7]

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[8]

Notes from GA criteria[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided.

-Mr. Guye (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Review[edit]

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)[reply]

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

N 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Decision[edit]

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 ✓ Pass this article as a good article.---Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.

[2] Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."

[3] Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.

[4] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.

[5] The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[6] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.

[7] Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.

[8] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]