Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work into if for years now, and I'd like to see it become a good article.
Thanks, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 07:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments from PrairieKid
[edit]First off- VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY happy you're doing this! Very important article and one that deserves the recognition and the quality. I'll just compare this to the GA Criteria to get a good idea. It might take me a little while. PrairieKid (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
(I'll add that I did fix one or two basic grammar/prose problems. PrairieKid (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) )
1) Well written: ? Beyond a few grammar issues that I dealt with, all you have to do is fix one problem and it will be fine here.
- A) Prose: I fixed a few minor errors in the article but, beyond them, it is clear and concise and follows the proper summary style while including important details. It is NPOV.
- B) Follows MoS: One problem I had here was in the 5th paragraph of the General Election (Campaign) section. I am not entirely sure that Warren's ancestry is relevant and, even then, the article doesn't show the relation to the topic very well. The fact that her claim was scrutinized needs to be included. Besides that, it is fine.
2) Citations:
- A) Has reflist... Yep.
- B)/C) Inline cites that are all good with no WP:OR: Cites 34 and 50 could be better written to include more but are acceptable for now.
3) Broad 
- A)Addresses main topics: A'yup.
- B)Focused: Besides the comment in 1B, I'd say so!
4) Neutral.
5)Stable One of the few articles that has not only successfully utilized its talk page but has, for the most part, avoided edit warring.
6)Illustrated: Looking good, looking good!
Summary: As it stands now, I find very little against it passing as a GA. I'm pretty impressed. Like I mentioned, I fixed a few grammar errors, but nearly everything else is great. Citations are all there and in order, prose is good, images are good... It is looking good. I'd fix those few mistakes and nominate it soon! Cheers. PrairieKid (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Designate
[edit]This is pretty good. One thing that's missing is the Democratic primary debate from October 2011. That should be mentioned in the primary section.
There are a few typos and grammatical hiccups:
- "Harvard Professor and architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, defeated incumbent Scott Brown." This sentence doesn't read right to me. "Professor" shouldn't be capitalized as it's not a title. It might work better to put her name before the description.
- "Chairman,Paul G. Kirk"
- "in precaution if Senator and presidential nominee John Kerry became President in 2004." how about "in anticipation of" the election?
- "16 – 18" Our house style is not to use spaces in a range of numbers like this.
- "September, 2011" shouldn't have a comma.
- "On April 27, 2012, the Boston Herald reported that Harvard Law School had touted Warren's Native American heritage as proof of their faculty's diversity." I would just put "April 2012" since it was an ongoing story. You should make it clear that the Herald article challenged Warren's claim as unsubstantiated; the article didn't just report on what Harvard said.
- "not to endorse Brown's opponent; which she refused" This shouldn't be a semicolon.
- "a Democrat [sic] polling firm" Don't link to Democrat Party (epithet) here. It's original synthesis to say he was using an "epithet" even if we have an article on the practice. Also MOS:QUOTE recommends against quoting inside links in general.
Good luck. —Designate (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)