Talk:Governor of Kentucky/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: • Ling.Nut 11:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is one hefty puppy. I'll work on it, but it may take a few days. • Ling.Nut 11:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The delay's no problem. I appreciate your time. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- This article relies very heavily on tertiary sources. That may or may not be a red flag; it's debatable. This is something for you to think about.
- This was more or less a convenience issue to cut down on the number of notes and save me from tracking down the same information in a myriad of different sources. The Kentucky Encyclopedia hits the high points on most of the major topics covered in the article, so it was the easiest thing to reference. I could probably track the same information down in secondary sources, but it would likely increase the number of references as notes significantly, and it would take me a while.
- In notes but not refs: Klotter; Miller; Pearce.
- Klotter is there, I think, but I've added the other two.
- The way you handled the Harrison refs is confusing to me. I suppose it is probably acceptable because it seems consistent, but it's confusing. The book chapters in the references have no page numbers (red flag there), while the notes refer to page numbers only but no chapters. Moreover, there are seven instances of Harrison (1992) in the refs. If it were me, I'd call them Harrison (1992a), Harrison (1992b) etc. in 'both the notes and refs. But – since you seem to be doing things consistently, I don't think it's required.
- No, that probably needs to be cleared up. I thought about adding the article title in addition to, or instead of, the article author's name (i.e. Harrison, "Garrard, James" in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, p. 363 or just "Garrard, James" in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, p. 363). What do you think?
- However, the editors of book chapters are not handled consistently. Sometimes you use lastname-firstname ("In Kleber, John E.") and sometimes firstname-lastname (In Lowell Hayes Harrison.)
- Good catch. Wonder why this hasn't been caught before. I'm pretty sure it's an issue in many of my other articles. Fixed.
- Very snakelike sentence: "In the 1891 constitution, the chain of succession ..."
- Gosh, that was an awful sentence! I think I've helped it some, but more editing may be required.
- "The chain of succession was again modified" ... When?
- Same amendment. I've made this more explicit now.
- "Another constitutional amendment, passed in November..." I don't see how this is relevant. I may be missing something.
- This addresses Wetherby's complaint that the governor had to hurry his agenda through in the first even-numbered session of his term (shortly after his inauguration) to avoid the "lame duck" status of the second even-numbered term. With the short sessions in odd-numbered years, the governor has more chances to get his agenda enacted.
- I kinda wonder whether the "Powers" etc should be moved up prior to election, succession, qualification, etc. See President of the United States.
- I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I'll probably need to read over the section to make sure it doesn't reference material covered in the sections currently above it. There are probably also some wiki-links that will need to change so they will be linked on first mention. All that is do-able, though, if you think this move is necessary.
- I don't necessarily think it's necessary, but it does seem to be a better ordering of the information, in my opinion. • Ling.Nut 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I'll probably need to read over the section to make sure it doesn't reference material covered in the sections currently above it. There are probably also some wiki-links that will need to change so they will be linked on first mention. All that is do-able, though, if you think this move is necessary.
- more later • Ling.Nut 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments so far. I believe we'll get this thing in GA shape in short order. BTW, if you want to add more stringent comments like those that I would get in an FA review, feel free. I think I'll probably take this to FAC after the first of the year. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- This article relies very heavily on tertiary sources. That may or may not be a red flag; it's debatable. This is something for you to think about.
- The lede says "and since 1995, incumbents". Shouldn't that be 1992? And the "impacted" sentence in the lede is too vague to be useful (plus i have run across a surprisingly large number of people who think that the word "impact" should never be used as a verb, regardless of what any dictionary ssays). • Ling.Nut
- Both points well taken. I had in mind "people elected in 1995 were eligible for re-election", but it reads clearer your way. I've removed the other sentence. Thanks for taking the time to do this review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Something that might be worth placing somewhere near to the end of the opening of the article, but to date Kentucky is the only state with the dubious distinction of having had a governor assassinated in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.104.43 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that as of Midnight in Eastern Kentucky- that is, where the capital is - Andy Beshear is now the Governor, as it is December Tenth. (Unlike presidents, in this case, Beshear becomes the official holder of the office at midnight.) Unfortunately, there seems to have been an edit conflict with the changes I made (simple stuff). Is this... bad? I'm relatively new here but I figured I'd try to update as soon as possible. Politicalseinfeldian (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)