Talk:Austin Meehan

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Austin Meehan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Comments will be forthcoming over the next couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Concerns addressed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All concerns addressed.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No source formatting issues

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sources are reliable; "ancestry.com", which I wouldnt' have usually accepted, looks like it's just a hosting site for reliable primary documents.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spotchecks raised a couple of issues, now cleared up.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No stability issues.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No caption issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All comments addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

• I wouldn't start a paragraph with "He played..."; name the subject in a new paragraph
• "Financial success gave him independence" this is ambiguous as written; without the second half of the sentence, it sounds like he's independent from his parents. Any way to clarify what "independence" was in this case without straying into OR?
• AFAIK "Politico" is colloquial; how about the more usual "early political career" as a section title?
• Can you clarify what Meehan means by "dead heads"? The best known use of the term is for these poeple...
• "win the next election" which election?

  I meant to what elected office/body

  I think he meant the whole ticket, not just one office. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Meehan and Crossan reconciled," perhaps "Meehan and Crossan later reconciled,", for flow?
• "bolting the party"; "bolting" is odd, here, to me. I'd suggest simply "leaving".
• " leader of the 35th ward": "leader" is ambiguous; do you mean councilman?
• "he tried for the": I'd prefer "ran" over "tried", given that this is an election.
• "noting that" is too heavy a use of Wikipedia's voice, as it implies it was a fact. If we're providing inline attribution, I'd recommend "stated" or "said" or "wrote".
• "allegations of insider corruption began to attach to Meehan's name" seems rather contorted. "Allegations of insider corruption were made about Meehan" or equivalent would be better.
• Last sentence of "Sheriff" has two changes of direction; "nonetheless", then "but". Would flow better if broken up.
  • Thank you for your comments so far. I've made these changes, which I think should answer your points. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Looking forward to the rest of them! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Just one reply above. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Resuming, "mounted another anti-corruption campaign" implies that it was a campaign against corruption, rather than an election campaign in which corruption was the major theme.
• "100,000 vote majorities" implies multiple elections; which ones are you referring to?
• "blasted" is verging on journalese.
• Do we know why Meehan didn't run for a third term?
• "Meehan backed the primary victors..." maybe clarify with "in the general election"?
• "Harold Stassen, was selected..." in this case, the reverse; clarify that this is a primary.
• "honored statewide by being named" why not simply "named"?
• Spotchecked Madonna and McLarnon; I'm not seeing stuff about the 1951 election on page 62
• That source also has a considerable amount of detail that it wouldn't hurt to add to the article. At 1300 words I think it meets my own arbitrary minimum for a GA, so I'm not going to fail it if you don't, but it's all there in a single place so it shouldn't be hard.
• Some of the paraphrasing is a little too close for comfort. " quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the source, "quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the article. I'd suggest double-checking anything that isn't plain statement of fact. I can't check very many more sources; most require a subscription.
• Spotchecked 26, looks okay.

  I made these changes, including adding some details from the article you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Looks good. Two final points, looking at the lead; a) it's a bit short, and b) the phrase "power broker" does not appear in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  True. I made that change and fleshed out the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Coemgenus: To be honest, I don't like "political boss" much, either; what does the term even mean? I think any meaning in it is entirely redundant to the final lead sentence. In the interests of getting this through quickly, I have simply trimmed that fragment, so that I can pass this. If you disagree, we can continue to discuss it, but I really think that based on what you have in the body, "influential member" and "unofficial head of the Republican party" is as far as you can go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  Works for me. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)