Talk:2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The LEAD is too long and includes information not found elsewhere in the article (does not summarize)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Some statements lack supporting citations (e.g. "The Republican primary attracted national attention, especially following Trump's endorsement of incumbent Senator Luther Strange")
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Given other issues in the article I did not do research to see if this article satisfies this criteria as compared to other GA/FA.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The Moore picture is really low quality. Given his profile I would be surprised if a better picture isn't available.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Lack of response to confirmation of interest means that detailed comments were not given.

Discussion[edit]

Can Nick2crosby or other article editor confirm that they are interested in going through the GA review process for this article? I have never done a GA review of an article under WP:ACDS so I'm not sure how they will play out in this review but am willing to do this review if there's an interested editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]