Raymond Pace Alexander is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 15, 2021. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FYI, would love to do the GA review of this, but not formally claiming it in case someone else can get to it before I do. — Luis ( talk) 15:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't find Mack 2012 online, but Canton says 1898 rather than 1897 - any idea what the source of the discrepancy is there? — Luis ( talk) 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LuisVilla ( talk · contribs) 04:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Strong, clear writing and organization. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Solid. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Fn. 16 (the Sphinx) does not seem to support the claim that this was a "first"?
Fn. 33 (Murray) does not seem to support the sentence - doesn't mention Alexander at all? (Still reviewing; have made it to the Trenton Six.) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Still reviewing this. Nothing glaring so far. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Passes both the eye test and automated tests look solid. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
@ LuisVilla: are you still reviewing this? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 19:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MX ( talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Will review this article. It looks ripe for promotion already, but I'll try to be as thorough as possible. Stay tuned. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 23:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Overall, this article is excellently written. I enjoyed it a lot. Below are a few issues / suggestions before passing this nomination. Thank you! MX ( ✉ • ✎) 03:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Schnader, now running for governor, now promised to find a solution – using "now" twice sounds a bit awkward. Consider rephrasing.
Raymond Pace Alexander is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 15, 2021. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FYI, would love to do the GA review of this, but not formally claiming it in case someone else can get to it before I do. — Luis ( talk) 15:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't find Mack 2012 online, but Canton says 1898 rather than 1897 - any idea what the source of the discrepancy is there? — Luis ( talk) 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LuisVilla ( talk · contribs) 04:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Strong, clear writing and organization. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Solid. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Fn. 16 (the Sphinx) does not seem to support the claim that this was a "first"?
Fn. 33 (Murray) does not seem to support the sentence - doesn't mention Alexander at all? (Still reviewing; have made it to the Trenton Six.) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Still reviewing this. Nothing glaring so far. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Passes both the eye test and automated tests look solid. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
@ LuisVilla: are you still reviewing this? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 19:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MX ( talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Will review this article. It looks ripe for promotion already, but I'll try to be as thorough as possible. Stay tuned. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 23:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Overall, this article is excellently written. I enjoyed it a lot. Below are a few issues / suggestions before passing this nomination. Thank you! MX ( ✉ • ✎) 03:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Schnader, now running for governor, now promised to find a solution – using "now" twice sounds a bit awkward. Consider rephrasing.