Talk:Eugenics in Minnesota/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Cedar Tree (talk · contribs) 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written generally, will do deeper check later. The lead should not have citations, and further should only contain material in the body. There is material only in the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some close paraphrasing issues, see here. Citation 36, 43 and 44 are not reliable. Haven't checked all.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems to be a general overview, however it seems too focused on things very extraneous to the article topic. This article has some very weird inclusions that makes me question its focus. Why is there an entire section on trump and racehorse theory when this has no relation to Minnesota other than the fact he gave a speech there? The in america section's sources have no relation to Minnesota, while enough do to prove notability most of the sources here do not which is a major issue.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks good

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Looks good

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues need addressing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)