Talk:1880 Greenback National Convention

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1880 Greenback National Convention/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I will undertake a comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. In the meantime, please feel free to leave me comments or questions regarding this review. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects from each of the article's sections. With this in mind, I suggest adding some content from the "Background" section. Perhaps mention that the party had arisen, mostly in the West and South, as a response to the economic depression that followed the Panic of 1873 and why the party came to be known as the Greenback party.
• For the same reason listed above, there should be a description of the three front runners as they are prominently profiled in the "Candidates" section: Weaver, Butler, and Wright.
• With the exception of the "Background" and "Candidates" sections needing to be included in the lede, the existing summarizes the remainder of the article's content well, and I have no other issues that need to be addressed here.
• I also suggest adding the number of delegates in the lede.

1 Background 1.1 Origins

• Link Greenback Party in its first mention in the article content section. Linking should happen once in the summary, and once in the content per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
• In the first paragraph, "many in both parties" should probably explicitly mention Democrat and Republican at first mention, as this may not be clear to non-American readers.
• Other than these minor suggestions, this section reads well and its internal citations are verifiable.

1.2 Party split

• This section reads well and its internal citations are verifiable.

2 Candidates

• I made several minor tweaks in this section and provided several wiki-links per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Please let me know if you disagree with any of this minor edits.
• All images are free, and therefore, appropriate for inclusion in this article.

2.1 Weaver 2.2 Butler 2.3 Wright 2.4 Other contenders

• Does the Lause citation also cover the first sentence of this paragraph?
• Other than that, I made some minor tweaks. In addition, I find that all images are free, the internal citations are verifiable, and these subsections read well as is.

3 Convention 3.1 Preliminaries 3.2 Reunification 3.3 Platform

• All the above subsections read well, and are well-sourced with adequate and verifiable internal citations.

3.4 Nominations and balloting

• The table is formatted properly, but I suggest adding an internal citation within the table, even though it is clear that the table's information is internally-cited within the prose.

4 Aftermath

• The table is sourced and formatted appropriately.

Coemgenus, I've completed my review and found now major errors or needs for rewriting. The lede needs some additions, and I made some minor tweaks throughout the article. You've done a spectacular job documenting this otherwise little-known party and its convention. It's been a privilege reviewing this article and I look forward to your responses. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, thanks for the thorough review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I'll work on these fixes over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, I think I've addressed all of your points. Thanks for the advice on the lede -- that's usually the weakest part of my articles, and this one reads much better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus, everything here looks in order. Thank you for incorporating my suggestions in such a timely manner; and thank you for all your tremendous work on this article. It is hereby a privilege to pass this to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 13:34, 15 January 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)