Talk:Lieutenant Governor of Indiana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 05:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In general this article meets the majority of the good article criteria. However, there are a couple of issues I feel need to be addressed before the article is formally given GA status.

• The original article was dominated by a list of lieutenant governors that compromised more than half the article. The list was so long that I felt it violated WP:EMBED, one of the MOS criteria that needs to be met for good article status per section 1b of the criteria. I questioned whether it would make sense to fail the article and suggest submitting it at WP:FLC. After consideration, I decided the best solution (which I boldly executed) I could see was as follows:
  • Move the list to its own article: List of Lieutenant Governors of Indiana, which was then linked from the See also section of the parent article.
  • Review what remained in the Lieutenant Governor of Indiana per the good article criteria.

Please review and let me know if you object to this division.

It's up to Charles, but I disagree. In no way was the article so long to require a split, per WP:SIZE. Although the list was about half the article, it is much more accessible and convenient to be on the same page, and the list is what most people are actually looking for. I now feel that this page is too short. Reywas92^Talk 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat divided on this as well. I don't think it hurts anything to have it on its own article, but I feel like it was also acceptable within this article. I had never read WP:EMBED before though, and I see how the length of the list may violate that guideline. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to expand this article, I'd suggest adding some history of lieutenant governors; however, I'm guessing there isn't that much to talk about. Right now I believe the article, while a little short, is broad enough to meet the GA criteria. –Grondemar 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the references, two reference the Constitution of Indiana, one references the Indiana Constitution. Please make consistent.
  • Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• In the Succession section, the following sentences need clarification:

In the event that both the governorship and lieutenant-governorship are vacant, the constitution stipulates that the Senate President pro tempore becomes governor.[7] If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant, the position remains vacant until the next general election, but the Senate elects a Senate President pro tempore to take over the duties of the lieutenant governor in the Senate.

The first sentence says that the President pro tempore becomes governor if the governor and lieutenant governor are incapacitated; however, the next sentence implies the Senate does not elect a President pro tempore unless the lieutenant governor is incapacitated. This needs to be clarified.

I've broken this up, and clarified it a bit. It is referring to separate things. If the governship and lieutenancy and vacant, the pro tempore becomes governor; he is no longer pro tempore then, but governor. The senate then elects a new pro tempore. Whoever the pro tempore is during the vacancy of the lieutenancy acts as president of the senate. So the first sentence is referring to a vacancy in both the governship and lieutenancy, but the second sentence to a vacancy in on the lieutenancy. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice to add another image or two to the article, perhaps of a past lieutenant governor or some government building associated with the lieutenant governor.

Images added of a couple colorful lieutenant governors and that statehouse. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article will be on hold for seven days waiting improvements.

Thanks. –Grondemar 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to your concerns. Thanks for you review! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks. I'm happy to pass this GA review. Congratulations! –Grondemar 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)