Talk:1880 Greenback National Convention/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus, I will undertake a comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. In the meantime, please feel free to leave me comments or questions regarding this review. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects from each of the article's sections. With this in mind, I suggest adding some content from the "Background" section. Perhaps mention that the party had arisen, mostly in the West and South, as a response to the economic depression that followed the Panic of 1873 and why the party came to be known as the Greenback party.
For the same reason listed above, there should be a description of the three front runners as they are prominently profiled in the "Candidates" section: Weaver, Butler, and Wright.
With the exception of the "Background" and "Candidates" sections needing to be included in the lede, the existing summarizes the remainder of the article's content well, and I have no other issues that need to be addressed here.
I also suggest adding the number of delegates in the lede.

1 Background 1.1 Origins

Link Greenback Party in its first mention in the article content section. Linking should happen once in the summary, and once in the content per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
In the first paragraph, "many in both parties" should probably explicitly mention Democrat and Republican at first mention, as this may not be clear to non-American readers.
Other than these minor suggestions, this section reads well and its internal citations are verifiable.

1.2 Party split

This section reads well and its internal citations are verifiable.

2 Candidates

I made several minor tweaks in this section and provided several wiki-links per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Please let me know if you disagree with any of this minor edits.
All images are free, and therefore, appropriate for inclusion in this article.

2.1 Weaver 2.2 Butler 2.3 Wright 2.4 Other contenders

Does the Lause citation also cover the first sentence of this paragraph?
Other than that, I made some minor tweaks. In addition, I find that all images are free, the internal citations are verifiable, and these subsections read well as is.

3 Convention 3.1 Preliminaries 3.2 Reunification 3.3 Platform

All the above subsections read well, and are well-sourced with adequate and verifiable internal citations.

3.4 Nominations and balloting

The table is formatted properly, but I suggest adding an internal citation within the table, even though it is clear that the table's information is internally-cited within the prose.

4 Aftermath

The table is sourced and formatted appropriately.

Coemgenus, I've completed my review and found now major errors or needs for rewriting. The lede needs some additions, and I made some minor tweaks throughout the article. You've done a spectacular job documenting this otherwise little-known party and its convention. It's been a privilege reviewing this article and I look forward to your responses. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, thanks for the thorough review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I'll work on these fixes over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, I think I've addressed all of your points. Thanks for the advice on the lede -- that's usually the weakest part of my articles, and this one reads much better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus, everything here looks in order. Thank you for incorporating my suggestions in such a timely manner; and thank you for all your tremendous work on this article. It is hereby a privilege to pass this to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]