Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments

Going to be reviewing this article, thanks for nominating it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Review

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:

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:

   The endorsements for Crowley should have a better source than his campaign page - this isn't likely to be a major issue - and including sources for all the individual endorsements would be ridiculous here, maybe include them in the main article on the election (which also currently only uses this source)?

   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 only issue is the reference for the Crowley endorsements, if that's fixed it passes. If the issue isn't addressed within seven days, I'll fail it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Elliot321: The issue has been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Some Dude From North Carolina: "people for bernie" on Twitter isn't really a RS either, though the rest of the additions are significant improvements. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Elliot321: I have replaced the reference. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 20:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Some Dude From North Carolina: not sure if People's World is really considered reliable, but I haven't seen evidence that it isn't (while they obviously have a political lean, these are statements of fact). Passing the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)