Talk:1824 United States presidential election in Missouri

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1824 United States presidential election in Missouri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 01:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Looks good

Lead

• MOS:POSS isn't definitive but consider changing "Adams's" to "Adams'"
  • I'm never entirely sure which way is correct. Have made the change

Background

• Adams having a "cold and distant personality" sounds a bit subjective. Is there someone who described him as that?
  • It's a mixture of Ratcliffe's summary and Adams's self-description, for neutrality reasons I've just quoted and attributed Ratcliffe here.

The election

• Lowercase "Federalism" in the 5th paragraph
  • Corrected

Aftermath

• Pipe "Frederick Bates (politician)" to "[[Frederick Bates (politician)|Frederick Bates]]"
  • Oops, fixed

Results

• Would it be possible to slightly increase the width of the "Party" column of the table so that the bolded instance of Democratic-Republican doesn't wrap to a second line.
  • I'm not sure. The table is fine on my desktop screen, but wraps over on mobile. From past experience, there often isn't a way to get this to work on all layouts all of the time. Hog Farm _Talk 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Images

• Images have appropriate licenses

References

• Sources are scholarly and appropriate for the article.

Overall

• Stable
• Neutral POV
• Sufficient coverage
• Stays focused

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Hog Farm: I've done my review of the article and left some comments. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 02:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: - thanks for the review! I can ask at WP:VPT about the table width issue if you'd like. As a heads-up, I'm going to be quite busy with work next week so any further comments I might be slow in addressing. Hog Farm _Talk 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: The rest of the article looks good and the table alone isn't a make or break for GA status so I'll pass the review. Good job on expanding this article! PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 02:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although Clay won the 1824 US presidential election in Missouri, due to none of the candidates winning a majority, the vote moved to the HoR where he was eliminated from contention? Source: Ratcliffe, Donald (2015). The One-Party Presidential Contest: Adams, Jackson, and 1824's Five-Horse Race. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-2159-0. Page 279 , McCandless, Perry (1972). A History of Missouri. Vol. II: 1820 to 1860. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 0-8262-0124-5. Pages 74-75
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Regis New York
  • Comment: Had to abbreviate practically everything or else the hook would have been too long

Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1824 United States presidential election in Missouri; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Hog Farm and Onegreatjoke: Recent GA qualifies. Earwig does not alert. Article has the correct inline citations and is neutral. The QPQ is done. I did not think the hook was good, perhaps one that reads better. Bruxton (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Hmm... what about
• ALT1: ... that the 1824 US presidential election in Missouri was not decided by the electoral college, but by Missouri representative John Scott? Wracking ^💬 19:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Wracking:, will see what @Hog Farm and Onegreatjoke: think. Bruxton (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That could work Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I didn't think the original hook was very good, but hadn't thought of a better one yet. Hog Farm _Talk 01:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovely! Bruxton (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)