Talk:Samuel J. Randall

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel J. Randall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Excellent prose. A couple sentences to consider changing: "As impeachment proceedings began against President Johnson" is a long wikilink. It could be broken into "As impeachment proceeding began against President Johnson". "When the 38th Congress convened in December 1863, the Civil War was approaching its end." There was still a year and a half left which included a lot of fighting. I don't think "approaching its end" it the best thing to say. "After Kerr's death, Randall was the consensus choice the Democratic caucus," missing an "of" or intended to be something different?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Although supported elsewhere in the article, some statements in the lead that are not simple facts should be referenced, eg. "[h]is defense of smaller, less centralized government raised his profile", "[h]e remained a respected party leader". Not important enough to block this nomination, though.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Verified that the online sources match the content. Since most sources are offline, I will trust in good faith that there is no OR among the remaining content.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	If this is ever an FA candidate, more information should be included about his family (wife, children) and a short section/subsection about his legacy could be added to the end.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All image file pages indicate an appropriate license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I didn't immediately understand the armory image and caption. Something like "...Cavalry (headquarters shown) in..." would be helpful. The congressional district map could be cropped, so that the text and district are clearer. The factory image could be replaced with something better if this article is submitted as an FA candidate.
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks like potential FA material.

AHeneen (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Coemgenus for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Title order

It is way more significant that he was Speaker than that he was one of hundreds of Representatives, so I think that should be in the first sentence of the article. Of course, people can disagree about how to word it. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)