Talk:1970 United States Senate election in New York/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

I am *relishing* the opportunity to review this article. Will be writing it out by the end of this week. Nomader (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 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:

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

   There's a large number of "On [Date]," phrases at the beginning of sentences in a repetitive way that should be removed, oftentimes in sentences one after the other. I think a few are fine, but this is a large enough prose issue that some of them have to be changed. I think it would also be helpful to split the general election blob into some more sub-sections which make it more readable (maybe group by themes, e.g. Goodell repudiation of Nixon?)-- same with the Democratic nomination section too.

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:

   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:

   I spot-checked 10 random sources and they all matched (great work!)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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):

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:

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The prose is fairly wooden because it reads as a list of dates, but I think it's actually a fairly easy fix so I'm putting the article on hold. *SUPER* interesting election, love writing these so it's a great experience reviewing it! Nomader (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Nomader: Opinion on the article now? - Jon698 talk 17:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jon698: Sorry about the delay here! The General election section is *much* better-- I think the Democratic nomination section still has similar issues with how the dates pieces are structured (there's a point between the second and third paragraphs here where over half of the sentences start in the exact same way-- I think that prose can easily be cleaned up to meet the MOS concerns I mentioned before. Otherwise, it's almost there. Nomader (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jon698: Hey Jon! Checked the article again and hadn't seen the improvements made yet to the Democratic nomination section. Could you ping me here once they've been done? This hold is getting a little long and I'd love to be able to pass this! Nomader (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nomader: Opinion on the article now? - Jon698 talk 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Hey @Nomader: it has been over a week. Just want to know your opinion on the article right now. - Jon698 talk 16:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
          • @Nomader: A request at WT:GAN was made for a new reviewer. I am able to take over if you are unable to continue. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorns review

I am going to make some comments here. If Nomader returns they can take back over, otherwise I will close it when I finish.

• One thing I noticed straight away was the WP:Proseline in the Democratic nomination section. Six of the nine paragraphs start with On [date] ..... The order is not chronological, which is not strictly necessary, but it does exacerbate the proseline. It is also present throughout other sections and gives the prose a diary quality. I see this was an issue Nomander had as well.
• It was speculated by who?
• The background is very convoluted. We start with speculation, then endorsement, announcement, nomination, and finally winning. It is a long way of saying that Robert F. Kennedy won the 1964 United States Senate election in New York. Is there any reason for all the preamble?
• mentioned and speculated who is mentioning and speculating?
• Again a lot of preamble in the appointments section. For a background is it necessary we have the names of all the speculated candidates and then narrowing down when we have the actual one mentioned.
• Okay I am going to stop here. I feel the prose is quite a way from Good Article standard. Not only do we have paragraphs starting with On [date] .... but within many paragraphs just about every sentence does it to. I think this needs to be resolved first. AIRcorn (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Aircorn, Jon698, where does this stand? I don't see any edits on the article since September, the original reviewer Nomader hasn't edited on Wikipedia in months, so they should no longer be considered the reviewer, and the issues Aircorn raised are significant and haven't been addressed in the six weeks since they were raised. Something needs to happen soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: Thank you for the ping I did not know about Aircorn's review. Right now I am busy taking my finals, but I can start working on the page tomorrow. Jon698 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I have either removed or added who was to the "mentioned and speculated" and "speculated" parts. The reason I have the preambles is to explain to the reader who seat this was since there was suppose to be a special election to fill this seat, but it was never held. The reason I have the out of order dates in the Democratic candidates section is because I ordered it by the candidates rather than by dates. Jon698 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • This is too far away for me and I don't think we will agree. The prose and focus is not up to Good Article standard to me. I am sorry I let this drift for so long. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)