Well-written: Looks good. Noticed the following minor problems:
"Wetherby won immediate acclaim". No context. This should say something like "Wetherby won immediate acclaim as governor".
"Several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were discussed". Discussed by whom?
"Early in Wetherby's term, the state's revenues were inflated by the Korean War." Shouldn't that read "expenses" instead of "revenues"?
"both whites and blacks". It might sound better to say "both white and black citizens" or something similar, so you're not using "white" and "black" as nouns.
"Beauchamp believed he would succeed Wetherby as governor, so he did not openly oppose Wetherby's actions." Might want to add a "however" in there before the "so".
"he was a delegate an assembly". Probably should read "he was a delegate to an assembly".
Divide your references into "References"+"Bibliography", "Notes"+"References", or one of the similar conventions rather than putting both types in the same section.
References should normally end in periods, although this is not widely enforced.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Looks good to me. Virtually everything is cited, and most of the citations are books or articles.
Broad in its coverage: Without knowing more about Wetherby myself, I can only assume this article is comprehensive in its coverage. It seems to cover all the major points of his political career at least.
Neutral: I don't see anything that appears biased in the article.
Stable: Like a rock.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: This is a hard era to illustrate. The only advise I can offer is to look at federal photo archives and see if anything turns up. There might be something regarding school desegregation for example.
Well-written: Looks good. Noticed the following minor problems:
"Wetherby won immediate acclaim". No context. This should say something like "Wetherby won immediate acclaim as governor".
"Several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were discussed". Discussed by whom?
"Early in Wetherby's term, the state's revenues were inflated by the Korean War." Shouldn't that read "expenses" instead of "revenues"?
"both whites and blacks". It might sound better to say "both white and black citizens" or something similar, so you're not using "white" and "black" as nouns.
"Beauchamp believed he would succeed Wetherby as governor, so he did not openly oppose Wetherby's actions." Might want to add a "however" in there before the "so".
"he was a delegate an assembly". Probably should read "he was a delegate to an assembly".
Divide your references into "References"+"Bibliography", "Notes"+"References", or one of the similar conventions rather than putting both types in the same section.
References should normally end in periods, although this is not widely enforced.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Looks good to me. Virtually everything is cited, and most of the citations are books or articles.
Broad in its coverage: Without knowing more about Wetherby myself, I can only assume this article is comprehensive in its coverage. It seems to cover all the major points of his political career at least.
Neutral: I don't see anything that appears biased in the article.
Stable: Like a rock.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: This is a hard era to illustrate. The only advise I can offer is to look at federal photo archives and see if anything turns up. There might be something regarding school desegregation for example.