Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign/archive1

Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to be a Good Article. The article was created 11 years ago, but was expanded by me 5 time the original number of characters and have above 85% authorship. It has almost been Copy-edited and DYK nomination has passed. Would appreciate any suggestion on wording, MOS, prose, etc. Thanks!

— Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Extraordinary Writ

• Meanwhile, Carter was in Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and Texas; all of them were "must" states for him but still required his attention. – needs a citation
• Wikilink Anne Armstrong and Philip Crane
• WP:RSNP notes that Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable because it's mostly user-generated content. I see there are a whole bunch of citations to it; they probably need to be replaced.
• The "Carter Declines to Debate After Anderson is Invited" citation (currently no. 93) is misformatted: it suggests that the author's name is "Hedrick Smith Special To the New York Times".
• You twice cite the "Toledo Balde". I presume that's a typo?
• Just a general comment: you can get free access to Newspapers.com (and lots of other helpful sites) via WP:TWL. In my experience, it's especially useful for things in 20th-century America, such as the articles that you work on.
• There's a citation (currently no. 169) that just says "Archived copy".
• The citation reading "Caryer 'Flip=Flop' is seen by Anderson" (currently no. 145) has two typos: Carter is misspelled and the equals sign should be a hyphen.
• There seems to be consensus that Mental Floss is not a reliable source.
• The citation to "The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission" (currently no. 58) seems to be a chapter from this book. I'd recommend including the author, the name of the book, etc.
• US Election Atlas appears to be self-published and thus not reliable.
• The two "Main Street Historic District" citations (nos. 2 and 23) appear to be identical; if so, they should be combined.
• To Reagan and the Gang of Four. – any reason for using boldface and italics? The sources don't appear to use either, and boldface in particular is strongly discouraged for emphasis.
• the tenth republican nominee to do so – capitalize Republican
• Image copyright is not my area of expertise, but I'm a bit concerned with File:Reagan-Bush Nashua 1980 debate.jpg. It states that it was made by a government employee in his official capacity, but there seems to be no evidence that that's the case. (I don't think the fact that the Reagan Library currently holds it matters: unless transferred, copyright belongs to the original photographer. And we don't seem to have any evidence who the original photographer is: it's most likely someone from the press, which would mean that there could still be a valid copyright in effect.) It might be worth asking someone knowledgeable than I about this (like Buidhe).
  • I'd agree. I don't see evidence that the photo is freely licensed, especially since the source link is dead. (t · c) buidhe 18:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article appears to be fundamentally good, so I'd encourage you to nominate it for GAN once you have the above issues worked out. Any remaining problems are probably sufficiently minor that they can be fixed during the review. Thanks for your hard work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Extraordinary Writ – I think I have addressed all the issues in these edits. Please review them and let me know if anything else needs to be considered. I agree that any minor issues would be resolved during the GA review itself. I'll close the Peer Review and nominate the article for GA within a day or so. And I did get access of JSTOR and applied for Newspaper.com access. Have a few more articles in mind to create, and those sites would definitely help me. Thanks for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)