Talk:William Hayden English

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Hayden English/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Coemgenus, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow hopefully tonight; if not, in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to your comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any you disagree with. On the whole, though, this looks terrific. It's well-written, excellently sourced, and a check against some Google sources shows that it's fairly complete in its coverage. I came close to quick-passing this, but there's just a few points I wanted to consult with you on:

• "Hancock and English lost the election by only 39,213 popular votes. The electoral count, however, had a much larger spread: Garfield-Arthur 214 and Hancock-English 155." -- as statistics, these need inline citation
  • Done.
• "was the noted socialist and NAACP co-founder William English Walling." -- "noted" seems like slight peacocking here per WP:PEA; I think the word could simply be cut. It might also be worth spelling out the full acronym of the NAACP for non-US readers.
  • Good points. Done.
• No citations appear to point to the Carleton citation--should it be removed from the list of references?
  • Done.
• Is it worth mentioning that he was a Smithsonian regent? [1], [2] Your call.
  • Certainly noteworthy, but I'm not sure where I'd put it that wouldn't interrupt the flow of the prose. I'll have another look tonight. In the meantime, I'm open to suggestions. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for this great contribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that resolves the above. The Smithsonian regency isn't enough of a "main aspect" to hold up a GA pass, but may be worth including if this goes to FA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright problems.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Coemgenus for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)