Talk:2011 South Bend mayoral election/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PoliceSheep99 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@SecretName101: The article has come a long way since the last GA nomination 6 months ago and it certainly looks GA quality from a general scan. I'll try and get this done as soon as possible, whilst still being thorough. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well Written

• the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience
  • No issues here
• spelling and grammar are correct
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for layout
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
• all inline 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
  • My only concern here is that the section on the Republican primary relies heavily on one source, the Benton Spirit Newspaper, however there is nothing that would be likely to be challanged and the source itself appears reliable. From looking at the last GA review, it seems necessary to ensure a balance of coverage of both the Democrats and Republicans as all the sources are very Buttigieg-heavy.
• it contains no original research
  • No issues here.
• it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
  • No issues here.

Broad in its coverage

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  • This has been achieved, as mentioned in the previous section.
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
  • No issues here.

Neutral

• it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable

• it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
  • No issues here.

Illustrated

• media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
• media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
  • My only suggestion here would be to attempt to find images of the other candidates if possible, as the last review pointed out.