Talk:2009 New York's 20th congressional district special election/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be reviewing this article. Please contact me with any issues, or if I don't follow up in a week from this post. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose isn't the best, but it seems relatively good. I'll say "aye" to 1a, but I strongly encourage that this go through Peer Review. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Could you please check out the deadlinks in this Checklinks report. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

   Didn't know that existed. I'll get on that later tonight. upstateNYer 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Done Not sure what the last blue link is on that page, but the link does work. Otherwise, should be all set. upstateNYer 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

   Can you get a better citation for "Michael S. Pollok, an attorney from Red Hook, announced his candidacy as an independent,[30] but subsequently withdrew.[31]" 31 should be replaced if possible; right now, there is nothing on that website but a redirect. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

   I removed it. The source saying he had considered was completely speculation. I saw 2 faces on the page that definitely did not put their names in the race. Seems he may have done it as a media stunt to get more traffic to his law firm's website. upstateNYer 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

   That seems good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "Candidates" section needs more expansion on why "the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees".

   Perhaps I missed it, but a read of this tells me nothing about why the special election was called for in the first place. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

   Will update and source that later tonight. upstateNYer 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Done See here. upstateNYer 04:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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):

   I'm unsure if File:James Tedisco.jpg actually needs to be in the article; it doesn't look like it adds much to it. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Just messaged the Flickr user to see if they'll freely license this image. I doubt it, but worth a shot. upstateNYer 20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All issues here have been resolved. I'll be passing this to a GA. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)