Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- The first paragraph of the body has good citations, but they are all at the end of the paragraph. Please cite the paragraph every sentence or two with the relevant sources - it's fine if a source is re-used multiple times in the same paragraph.
- What is the PPA?
- As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made minor prose edits myself to save us both time. If there are any changes you object to, just let me know.
- Pass, issues resolved.
|
|
1b. it complies with the
Manual of Style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation.
|
|
2.
Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
|
|
|
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- What is "Klotter"?
- It's fine to have some books as general sources and then to have specific citations to specific page numbers, but I would then separate out those books into a preceding 'Sources' section, followed by a 'Citations' section with the specific cites.
- The ky.gov work - do we have any more context for its production such as a date or author? It looks, from the URL, like it may have been produced for the bicentennial (so presumably 1976)?
- Cites #2 and 3 (Connnelly et al) appear to be identical and should be combined.
- Do we have a publisher/date/ISBN etc for "A New History of Kentucky"?
- Did Kleber, Harrison, or both write "The Kentucky Encyclopedia"?
- Burckel is a mystery source that needs further detail as well. What are your thoughts on the question about the ky.gov work above? —
Ganesha811 (
talk) 02:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Issues addressed (though any further information on the bicentennial source would be welcome), pass on this. —
Ganesha811 (
talk) 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
reply
|
|
2c. it contains
no original research.
|
|
|
2d. it contains no
copyright violations or
plagiarism.
|
- A clear copyvio on the "Of this union" sentence about his children from KY.gov source, and several other phrases are uncomfortably close ("County Judge"). Please fix and rephrase these ASAP.
- There is also some very close phrasing/copyvio from Connelly et al ("largely directed" campaign) and a couple other phrases. These also need to be fixed ASAP. Merely moving a couple of words (such as a date) around is not enough to avoid copyright issues.
- As this is your first nomination, I'm willing to give you a little leeway and time to fix these issues, but be aware that copyvio issues usually result in a
quickfail and the end of a GA review.
- The above has been addressed; will re-check at the conclusion of the review.
- A second check reveals no remaining issues.
|
3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
3a. it addresses the
main aspects of the topic.
|
- A few of the sources make mention of the
temperance issue in the 1907 campaign. I think it would be good to add a sentence or three on that in the appropriate subsection.
- Do we have any detail at all available on his roles in government before the gubernatorial campaign?
- I don't think this could pass FA with the concerns above, but given the paucity and brevity of reliable sources, I feel comfortable that it's at the GA standard.
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style).
|
- No areas of overdetail. Pass.
|
|
4.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
- No issues of neutrality. Pass.
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
|
- New article, no issues of stability or unresolved issues on talk.
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
|
|
6a. media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content.
|
- It would be nice to have more information about the photograph, such as an exact year, but it was clearly published in 1902 at the latest, so is PD. The book's introduction (page 7) suggests that of 900+ photographs, 800 of them were prepared specifically for the book by Heybach-Busch Co from new photographs, but I can't see a way of telling whether Hager's is among them. Subjectively, he looks about the right age for it to be a 1902 portrait, but we can't rely on that.
|
|
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|