Talk:1927 Chicago mayoral election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I started with the image review (big surprise if you know what kind of work I do here) and found rather a lot of problems with File:Williamdever.jpg - you can't really claim something is out of copyright by way of {{PD-US-1923}} and give the year as 2006.

This doesn't block promotion as I have removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement. The other two candidate photos are... very mediocre, but this isn't FPC.

So, criteria

1. Well written

the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes, it's quite well-writen and clear. Nice work.

2. Verifiable with no original research

As far as I can tell, yes.

3. Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Yes, though the section "Republican primary" feels rushed, without even a mention of Thompson. I'm sure that the idea was that he was already covered, but... seems like a brief comment should be made on him there.

4Neutral

I think so. All the main candidates are covered neutrally.

5 Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Standard heavy editing you see before a GA run, but nothing that constitutes a dispute.

6 Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

The problem above beside, yes. The images made for this article are very good, by the way, it's only the historical ones that have any issues.

I'd say this is a clear. ✓ Pass. Minor issues acceptable at GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)