Talk:Increase Sumner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Michael! (talk · contribs) 11:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll review this article. It certainly looks good. Initial comments will follow soon.Michael! (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

First GA review

As I said, it looks good and I think it's certainly a GA. Here are a few minor remarks you should have a quick look at. However, I still have to check the references before I'll pass it as a GA.Michael! (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked many of the notes and references and didn't encounter any serious problems. I'll pass this article as a GA soon.Michael! (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "bar": I assume you mean the legal meaning (bar_(law)), not the pub/establishment or any other meaning of bar.
• "Commonwealth": I assume you mean Massachusetts: Commonwealth_(U.S._state)#Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts. It might be a good idea to provide a short note, a wikilink, or to rephrase this, since Commonwealth has several meanings, which might be confusing to British people unfamiliar with the history of MA, for instance.
• "slavery": is this wikilink relevant? Or could you provide a better, more specific wikilink?
• "gubernatorial succession": although I'm not afraid of big words, I seriously doubt if everybody understand this. Could you rephrase it?
• "France", "US constitution" and "gov of MA" are wikilinked, but "British authority" and "US president" aren't.
• Note [28]: page 44 doesn't seem relevant. Are you sure you cited the correct page number?

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review this. I think I've addressed these issues -- good catch on that last one, it was the wrong page number. Magic♪piano 14:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; passed
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. passed
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; passed
   2. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; passed
   3. it contains no original research. passed
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; passed
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). passed
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. passed
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. passed
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; passed
   2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. passed

Conclusion

There are no issues with this article and it certainly meets all of the GA criteria. Therefore, it is passed as a GA and already listed here.  Done

User:Magicpiano, thank you for your work on this article.

Michael! (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)