GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Will be happy to review this. Right off the bat this looks to be a high quality article. ♦
jaguar
15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Kavyansh.Singh: I have read through the article and am content in giving it an outright pass. While I often feel negligent in my duties as a GA reviewer for not leaving any comments, the well-structured nature and flawless prose of this article prevents me from doing so. It meets the GA criteria on prose, comprehensibility and the references all check out. One minor point I would mention is if it would be worth linking Clinton's gubernatorial elections in the lead's second paragraph when mentioned, though I also wonder if doing so would clutter it with blue links. All in all this is a solid article, and perhaps a solid FAC candidate. Well done! ♦ jaguar 22:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Will be happy to review this. Right off the bat this looks to be a high quality article. ♦
jaguar
15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Kavyansh.Singh: I have read through the article and am content in giving it an outright pass. While I often feel negligent in my duties as a GA reviewer for not leaving any comments, the well-structured nature and flawless prose of this article prevents me from doing so. It meets the GA criteria on prose, comprehensibility and the references all check out. One minor point I would mention is if it would be worth linking Clinton's gubernatorial elections in the lead's second paragraph when mentioned, though I also wonder if doing so would clutter it with blue links. All in all this is a solid article, and perhaps a solid FAC candidate. Well done! ♦ jaguar 22:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)