Talk:2000 Alabama Amendment 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 10:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I'm being nitpicky, but it seems weird to have two tiny sections for Content and Results. Is it possible to combine them, either with each other or another section?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No concerns here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This is probably owing to source availability more than anything else, but the article feels a little thin. I found some sources that might help, so I'll send them over for review for you. No issues with focus as its a narrow topic. Is it possible also to explain who Michael Chappell is, even briefly? Without context, since he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article to look at, it's not clear why his opposition is significant.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No concerns.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No concerns.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Premeditated Chaos: I've done some expansion of the article. Not sure about combining Content and Results, but I've added a bit more prose to each of them. Also tried to explain the role of Chappell in opposition a bit better, by noting that he was a prominent member of a PAC. Not sure if there's a better way to write about him, though, I think the details of his lawsuit should remain in a separate section from the pre-election endorsements. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on keeping the sections separated - I think adding more prose to each helped them look not so nude. Last nitpick - I think it would make more sense to move the bit about same-sex marriage from the first section down to the final section with the rest of it. I noticed you didn't include the stuff about Oregon and other states being inspired to alter their own outdated constitutions after - intentional? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping the part about same-sex marriage in the Background section makes sense, given that it was a consideration when the bill was written, not after the amendment was passed (if there was more information on the actual writing of the bill, that's where I'd include it, too).

As for Oregon, nope, just forgot about that, lemme add it :) Elli (talk | contribs) 06:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I've added it ~~and now I wanna write another article...~~, look good? Elli (talk | contribs) 06:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the new additions I think we're good to go here :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Elli (talk | contribs) 18:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]