GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 14:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) at 18:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this one looks quite good in most places. Comments coming soon. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

Stability

[edit]

Prose / MoS

[edit]

Referencing

[edit]

Green checkmarkY The page is heavily referenced and all of them seem to be reliable.

POV

[edit]

Green checkmarkY The page isn't clearly biased towards Goldwater or Johnson, and sticks to coverage of the advertisement and its cultural impact.

Orginal Research

[edit]

Green checkmarkY No original research to be found here.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

[edit]

Green checkmarkY The page reads quite well and covers all the main details of the ad well, feeling pretty complete.

Media

[edit]

Green checkmarkY Only three pieces of media are used here, and they are all available to use.

Conclusion

[edit]

Overall, I'd say this article is GA standard, aside from the listed MOS and Grammar edits. However, as they've already been done, I'd be happy to pass this. Any further comments @Kavyansh.Singh? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Sure, I'd be delighted if you can pass this article today, as coincidentally, today is Lyndon B Johnson's 113th Birth anniversary! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.