Talk:Oliver P. Morton/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the War Effort section, Lincoln is mentioned in the first paragraph, but then introduced with his title and full name in the second paragraph. This should probably be switched around so that the full name and title is given first, and then simply his last name is used in the second paragraph.

Fixed.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I may be missing something, but from what I can see the Garraty reference is present in the sources, but is not used in any in-line references. If this is true, it should be moved to a "Further reading" section or removed altogether.

Didn't see it either; removed.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just a couple of minor issues that should be quite easy to fix, so I am placing the review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All things fixed.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those up Bedford! And Thanks for your speedy review. Please let me know if there is anything else Charles Edward (Talk) 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good with the article, so I am passing it to GA status. The only picky thing I can see is that with the statute picture being moved down, it creates a chunk of white space in the See also section. Although this should be fixed, it's nothing to prevent GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]