Talk:Charles Mathias/GA1

GA Review

This is generally an excellent article, and all contributors should be very proud of it. It engaged me, and I learned a great deal from it. It's obvious that a lot of painstaking research of offline sources went into it, which is great, since I think Wikipedia is at its most valuable when it takes information that isn't available online and brings it here. My review against the Good Article criteria follows. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: All issues have been satisfactorily addressed, and the article is now a GA. Congratulations! Actually, I think this probably isn't too far from FA quality, though I'm not personally all that experienced in that area. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it well written?

• Generally quite good. I think there's some room for improvement - there always is - and I'll make some suggestions for that improvement below. These aren't all preconditions for the article passing as a GA, and if you disagree with me on any of them please feel free to say so:

• "He was also a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from 1959 to 1960, and a member of the United States House of Representatives..." I find the repetition of "a member of" to be somewhat awkward, and I think it would flow better if you reworded to "...from 1959 to 1960, and of the...". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "He worked as a lawyer, and was elected to the state legislature in 1958." Given that the previous sentence talks about his wartime service, I think some context in this sentence would be helpful - "After the war, he worked as a lawyer", or "Beginning in 19XX, he worked as a lawyer", or something similar. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• The heading "Congressional career" doesn't seem ideal, since his time in the Senate is also part of his Congressional career (right?). What about something like "In the House of Representatives"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "He officially began his campaign in March, establishing public education and controlling government spending as two of his priorities should he be elected." Because both "establishing" and "controlling" are in the same form, this sentence creates an impression of parallelism that doesn't actually exist. Would it work to replace "controlling" with "controls on" or "controlled"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Both candidates attacked each others' voting records..." The apostrophe here is in the wrong place, since "other" is singular here (as it always is when following "each"). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, you deleted the apostrophe, but it still needs to be there; it was just in the wrong place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. --Tom (talk - email) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...having the "worse Republican record in Annapolis." Should that read "worst"? If not, the quote needs to be worked in in a different way, since it doesn't work to have a comparative following a definite article like that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Mathias had previously accused Foley of voting "present" in the U.S. House too often, which he argued was leading to higher taxes and inflation due to inaction." There are a few things that I don't like about this sentence. First, I don't think the "had previously" is necessary, unless these accusations took place before Mathias challenged him in the election. If not, it seems bulky and passive (if you think it's important to establish that Mathias' accusations came first, put them before Foley's in the article, rather than starting with Foley's and doubling back). Second, "...was leading to higher taxes and inflation due to inaction" is very awkward. Off the top of my head, what about segmenting this into a new sentence to read "Mathias argued that this inaction led to inflation and higher taxes."? Also, with the current wording it's not clear whether "higher" modifies "inflation" or only "taxes" - was Mathias suggesting that this led to "higher inflation", or to "inflation"? Finally, while I know what it means to vote "present", I'm not sure this is a well-known enough concept. Is there a wikilink that might be helpful? Or would it work to add a paranthetical device like "(a de fact abstention)"? Or would it be better to replace "voting present" with "abstaining"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your way works too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...and becoming the first representative from Frederick County, Maryland..." I'd omit the state here, since it's already well-established by this point that Frederick is in Maryland. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...advocating open housing" Was it the amendment or the bill itself that advocated open housing? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure your fix works, though I understand what you're trying to say, since the sentence doesn't treat the amendment and the bill discreetly. What about "He was the author of the "Mathias Amendment" to the unsuccessful 1966 civil rights bill on open housing."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, based on your suggestion. --Tom (talk - email) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Mathias officially declared his candidacy for Senate..." It seems to me that there should be a "the" before "Senate", but I'm not positive. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...calling for a reduction in the amount of forces in the Vietnam War..." Superfluous wording - I'd suggest doing away with "the amount of". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer your solution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Concerning law and order, Brewster adopted a hard line stance..." I'd invert this, to something like "Brewster adopted a hard-line stance on law and order issues". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Personal and campaign finances were also made issues of the campaign, with Brewster causing controversy over the fact that $15,000 had been donated to his campaign by his Senate staff and their relatives." I find this awkward. I think it would be improved if the subject was changed from "Brewster" to "controversy", and tightening the wording elsewhere. How about "Campaign finances were also an issue, with controversy erupting over Brewster's receipt of $15,000 in campaign contributions from his Senate staff and their families."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "On election day, November 5, 1968, Mathias defeated Brewster and perennial candidate George P. Mahoney. Mathias garnered 48% of the vote to Brewster's 39% and Mahoney's 13%." I think these sentences would be better merged, to something like "On November 5, 1968, Mathias was elected, garnering 48% of the vote to Brewster's 39% and perennial candidate George P. Mahoney's 13%."

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Mathias defeated incumbent Democrat Daniel Brewster, despite his party's 3-1 advantage in registered voters." It's not clear whether "his" refers to Mathias or Brewster here (well, it is clear to me, but only because I've read the rest of the article). Suggest changing "his party's" to "Democrats'" or something similar. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "First term (1969-1975)" and "Second term: conflict with conservatives (1975-1981)". I really like your tactic of giving the second term a "subtitle"; would it be possible to do the same with the first term, both for consistency and for overall article quality? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "On local issues..." the rest of this sentence deals with Washington D.C. issues. Are those truly "local" from the perspective of a Maryland senator? You'd know better than I would, but it seems odd to me, since Washington residents obviously aren't eligible Maryland voters. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...unless the Nixon administration began to work harder..." I'd suggest changing "began to work" to "worked". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "He also warned against a "Southern strategy"..." Who would use this strategy? The Republican Party generally? The Nixon administration specifically? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Concerning the Supreme Court, Mathias voted against two controversial Nixon nominees..." You open sentences with "Concerning X" quite often; it's my view that this sort of preface interrupts flow (and even if it doesn't, you should mix it up a little if only for variety). In this case, how about "Mathias voted against two controversial Nixon Supreme Court nominees"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...neither of whom were nominated by the rest of the Senate." A couple of issues: first, I believe (though I could certainly be mistaken, as my specialty is Canadian politics, not American) that the Senate doesn't nominate justices, but confirms them after they're nominated by the President. Second, the use of "neither" makes the subject singular, so it should be "Neither of whom was..." Finally, I'd suggest eliminating "rest of", since that makes it appear that Mathias wasn't part of the decision. Actually, if you do change the verb to "confirmed", I'd suggest just ending the sentence immediately after that word. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...investigation into the Watergate Scandal surrounding Nixon" "Of" strikes me as a better preposition than "into". Also, I don't think "surrounding Nixon" is necessary; almost all readers will have a passing familiarity with the scandal, and those who don't can follow the wikilink.

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "By the numbers, Mathias sided with the Nixon administration 47% of the time, and voted with his party 31% of the time during his first term." A couple of things: first, there needs to be a comma following "31% of the time", since "during his first term" modifies the first part of the sentence as well. Second, what does "voted with his party" actually mean? Voted the same way as a majority of the Republican senators? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...and also their attendance." This isn't really a "well written" issue, but I have to ask: what does attendance have to do with how liberal a senator is? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...with limited name recognition throughout the rest of the state." I'd replace "throughout" with "in". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...nearly five times that of Mikulski's campaign." "That" is a pronoun, but it's not clear what noun it's replacing. How about "nearly five times Mikulski's total" or something similar? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...though he lost badly in Baltimore City..." I'm obviously not a Marylander, but "Baltimore City" sounds strange to me, since when I hear "Baltimore" I automatically think of the city. You're a better judge than I am of this, though: is this something that a Marylander would actually say? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it from your inaction that my concern was unfounded. Fair enough. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to mention why I left it alone. I kept "Baltimore City" since I felt it would work better than "...Baltimore and Baltimore County...". They are both independent entities. Locally, many Marylanders just refer to "the city" and "the county" when distinguishing the two, so "Baltimore City" is not an uncommon way of describing it. --Tom (talk - email) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...such an event would place the party leadership "in further isolation, in an extreme—almost fringe—position"" Was he saying that the mere fact of a Reagan-Ford contest would have this effect? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "On November 8, 1975, he hinted at entering some presidential primary elections to steer the party away from its strong conservative trend, should Reagan have won the 1976 New Hampshire primary." This doesn't quite parse - what is "should Reagan have won the 1976 New Hampshire primary" supposed to modify? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Mathias never campaigned aggressively, and was not taken seriously as a contender." Given that the previous sentence was about Mathias hinting at running, and this one seems to be about him actually running, there seems to be a missing link: him deciding to run/announcing his candidacy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "In further criticism of..." I'd suggest changing this to either "In a further criticism of" or "In further criticizing". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...his party neglecting liberal voters..." How about "his party's neglect of liberal voters"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...the conservative wing of Maryland Republicans..." I'm not sure "Maryland Republicans" can have a "wing" - doesn't the word suggest an actual organization? I think the Maryland Republican Party could have a wing, but I'm not sure Republicans at large can. What do you think? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...he lost in a vote..." I don't think the word "in" serves any purpose here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Conservatives in the state were considering challenging Mathias for his seat, such as Marjorie Holt or Robert Bauman," The "such as" bit doesn't work, because it's not clear what it applies to. Something like "Several conservatives in the state, such as Marjorie Holt or Robert Bauman, were considering challenging Mathias for his seat" would work, as would any number of other reworkings. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "However, Mathias chose to remain as a Republican..." As this now reads, the "However" contrasts this statement with the fact that some conservatives were considering challenging him. From what I can tell, it's actually supposed to contrast with the fact that he was rumoured to be considering leaving the party. I'd suggest inverting this sentence and the one about conservatives considering challenging him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your fix. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...also the only Republican who won the city of Baltimore..." I'd change "who won" to "to win". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Additionally, his frequent difficulties in securing a committee chairmanship along with his low attendance rate were raising questions regarding his effectiveness. However, Mathias was showing signs of seeking re-election in 1985, and dismissed any claims of ineffectiveness." Is it possible to avoid repetition of the word "effectiveness" here? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Referring to the phone on his desk," I don't think this is helpful, as it's pretty obvious from the quote what he's referring to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Despite initial indications otherwise, Mathias announced on September 27, 1985 that he would not seek a fourth term in the upcoming 1986 elections." I'd delete "in the upcoming 1986 elections"; the elections were mentioned and wikilinked in the previous paragraph. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• The "Political editorials" section is, in my view, far too quote-heavy. I'd suggest transwiki-ing much of the content to Wikiquote, and incorporating lots this section as a summary of his views in the relevant other sections. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Legacy, and post-Senate life" I don't think the comma here is helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...and the Equal Rights Amendment[8]," Footnote after punctuation, please. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• The article's second last paragraph repeats the word "Bay" too often, in my view. I'm also not convinced that it's appropriate to capitalize the word when used in isolation - it seems akin to capitalizing "the City" when you're referring to Kansas City. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed on both counts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New issues

• "As a delegate, he voted in favor of Maryland ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which secured African American rights following the American Civil War." Shouldn't that be "Maryland's ratification" or "Maryland ratifying"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, based on your suggestions. --Tom (talk - email) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...suggesting Mathias would win renomination easier..." This should read "...more easily...", since it modifies a verb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, based on your suggestions. --Tom (talk - email) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "He also secured support from several precincts of Baltimore's political machine and labor unions, both which typically support Democrats." Pardon my ignorance, but what is Baltimore's political machine? I always thought that each party had its own "machine" (organizers and the like). If this "machine" isn't connected to any party, what is it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I reworded this sentence. --Tom (talk - email) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, except "Democratic" should be capitalized (I'm assuming this refers to the party - otherwise, I'm still not clear on what it means). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "He also served as co-chair of the Joint Committee on Printing from 1981 to 1983, and 1985 to 1987; and as a member of the Joint Committee on the Library from 1983 to 1987." This semi-colon doesn't work, since what follows it isn't an independent clause. It should be a comma, and the comma after "1983" can be removed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Since his retirement, Mathias has served on numerous boards and committees. He was a member of the Governor's Commmission on State Taxes and Tax Structure (1989-1990); a member of the the Maryland Civil War Heritage Commission (1992-1995); a member of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured; co-chair of the Task Force on the Presidential Appointment and Senate Confirmation Process (1996); a member of the board of the George C. Marshall International Center; a member of the board of the Center for Responsive Politics; a member of the board of WorldSpace Satellite Radio; and board member emeritus of Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies." Same thing here with the semi-colons - though I've seen semi-colons used to separate list items, this is normally only done when the list items are convoluted enough that commas aren't sufficiently clear separators. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

• Good to perfect. A couple of questions, which I can't answer myself since most sources are offline (I presume that all material is somewhere in the references, but it's sometimes unclear which reference supports which material):

• "He was the author of the "Mathias Amendment" to the unsuccessful 1966 civil rights bill, advocating open housing." There's no footnote and the end of this sentence. Does the source at the end of the next sentence also cover this one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• There's only one footnote in the first paragraph of "Election of 1968: unseating Brewster". Does that footnote support all material in the paragraph? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "As the campaign drew on, the two primary issues became the War and criminal activity. Mathias argued that the extensive bombing campaigns in North Vietnam should be reduced, while Brewster had argued for increasing bombardment. Concerning law and order, Brewster adopted a hard line stance, while Mathias advocated addressing the precipiating causes of poverty and the low standard of living in urban ghettos. Personal and campaign finances were also made issues of the campaign, with Brewster causing controversy over the fact that $15,000 had been donated to his campaign by his Senate staff and their relatives." Does the single source provided at the end of this passage support all material in the passage? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Due to their differing ideologies, there was speculation that Mathias was going to be "purged" from the party by Nixon in a similar manner as Goodell in 1971, but these threats disappeared after the Watergate scandal escalated." This appears to be unsourced - is it, or am I mistaken? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "However, he still managed to raise over $250,000, nearly five times that of Mikulski's campaign." Is this statement supported by the article "Mathias Is Elected To a Second Term"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• The third paragraph of "Second term: conflict with conservatives (1975-1981)" - the one beginning "At the beginning of the new Congress..." - is quite long, but includes only one reference. Does that reference actually support all of the material in the paragraph? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Same goes for the third paragraph of "Final term (1981-1987)". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• "After his retirement, The Washington Post stated that Mathias' lasting reputation would be that of a maverick. Though he was elected to the House in 1960 as a moderate/conservative, his life in the Congress moved him to the center, and he frequently deviated from the party line and sided with Democrats. The fact that he "went out of his way to disassociate himself from [Ronald Reagan]" in the 1980 elections had hindered his chances at a chairmanship. Mathias also established a record on civil rights, having played an important role in passing a fair housing bill while he was in the House, and also in establishing a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr." This all appears to be uncited. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

These concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction on my talk page here. This is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?

• There are some gaps here, especially in his early life:

• What did he study at Haverford and Yale? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• How did he come to be Assistant Attorney-General? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• What were the conditions of his election to the House of Delegates (did he defeat an incumbent, what were the major issues, etc)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• What did he do as a member of the House of Delegates? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• What was his family background like? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "the Americans for Constitutional Action stated Mathias agreed with their positions only 16% of the time." Since this isn't wikilinked, it would probably be good to include a few words about what sort of an organization this is; otherwise, it's pretty well meaningless to talk about how often Mathias agreed with them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Mathias was renominated by Republicans, even though conservatives in Maryland frequently criticized his liberal voting record." Did he have any primary opponents at all? My impression from the article is no, but it might be worth stating one way or another. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "However, they disagreed on how to address inflation and corporate price fixing..." Could there be any elaboration on their respective positions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• "At one point, Mathias was close to being denied attendance to the convention altogether as an at-large delegate." I'm not sure expanding on this is essential, but it aroused my curiosity: don't Senators get automatic delegate status at RNCs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Mathias was also prevented from assuming a leadership position on the Government Operations Committee, and on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights." How? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Conservatives in the state were considering challenging Mathias for his seat, such as Marjorie Holt or Robert Bauman, which could have resulted in a difficult primary battle for Mathias." How did this turn out? I assume they decided against challenging him; is there any indication as to why? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• "When Wicker asked him which senators he respected the most, Mathias listed J. William Fulbright, Jacob Javits, John Sherman Cooper, Cliff Case, Phil Hart, Mike Mansfield, and George Aiken." Just a minor point of my own preference: I think it might be worthwhile here to mention the party breakdown of these senators (four Republicans, three Democrats). It's by no means critical, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough of these concerns have been addressed to pass the article on this criterion. I'd still like to see more information about his early life, if such information should become available. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it neutral?

• Yes. Writing neutral articles about politicians isn't easy, but I think it's been managed beautifully here. I personally find that the article reflects rather well on Mathias, but after a careful examination of the language I've concluded that this is more because of my own biases than because of any bias inherent in the article. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it stable?

• Yes. No stability concerns at all. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

• Yes. All are appropriate selections that are properly-licensed. I also like how in a couple of cases images are used that are not used elsewhere in the project; I think these add more value than repeating images that are in other articles. As a comment, it would be nice if more free images of Mathias himself could be found, as right now there are only two in the article (compared to six of other people), but that has nothing to do with GA status. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)