Talk:1824 United States presidential election in Missouri/GA1

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.

---

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

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.