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

Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 21:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there again! I‘ll be taking this one. I hope to complete this review over the next few days (hopefully less time than he was in office) so stay tuned. Looking forward to reading more about Mr Goebel! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ExcellentWheatFarmer – Just so you know, this was a featured article before June 2021, when it was delisted because books didn't had page numbers! I fixed all that, and think that it is ready for GA review. Also, this is my attempt to save this featured topic. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed! Most the sourcing issues seem to have been fixed, but I don't own/have access to most of the books cited, so it'd be appreciated if you could do a small spot-check of them all (aside from Harrison 2004), just to make sure it's correct.

Alright @Kavyansh.Singh, I'm happy to pass this article now. Any other thoughts? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Thanks! As for the references, are you fine with them or do I need to provide a brief spot check detail here. I'll provide you with the text of the sources for you to compare it with article's text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the spot check would be appreciated! That way you can refer back to them as evidence for the FTN. Thanks! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Earwig's copyvio detector checks out fine.
• The page seems mostly stable, with no edit wars or controversies on either the page itself or the talk.
• Images are all fair use and well used. They even all have alt-text - good job!

• Infobox seems fine.
• "Goebel was born to Wilhelm and Augusta (Groenkle) Goebel" Clarify what Groenkle means.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "He studied at the Hollingsworth Business College and became an apprentice in John W. Stevenson's law firm." What year(s) did he do this?
  • Direct year is not specified by the sources, though "mid 1870s" is mentioned ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "While Goebel lacked the social qualities common to politicians, various authors referred to him as an intellectual man." What social qualities?
  • Specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1895, Goebel engaged in what many observers considered to be a duel with John Lawrence Sanford, a former Confederate general staff officer turned cashier." -> "In 1895, Goebel engaged in a duel with John Lawrence Sanford, a former Confederate general staff officer turned cashier."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sanford's died; Goebel pleaded self-defense and was acquitted." -> "Sanford was killed; Goebel pleaded self-defense and was acquitted."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "During the 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election, Goebel divided his party with his political tactics at a time when Kentucky Republicans were gaining strength, having elected the party's first governor four years previously." What political tactics?
  • Specified in brief. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, clarification of Groenkle would go well here, if not already in the lede.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "William attended school in Covington" Replace William with Goebel
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For Ref #6, what page number?
  • Well, Ref#6 is a biography of Goebel published in print in 1999 (online in 2000). As I am citing the online version, no page number is specified at the web page (which requires subscription)
    • Ah, understood.

• Break this section up into two paragraphs.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kentucky Democrats, who controlled the General Assembly, believed that county election commissioners had been unjust in selecting local election officials, and which had unfairly contributed to the election of Republican governor William O. Bradley in 1895." This could be reworded to be more neutral.
  • Sure; tried. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace "electrified".
  • Well, it seems to me that this is not an extraneous word. This speech was practically the biggest reason why Bryan won the convention, as a dark-horse candidate. Moreover, 'electrified' has been used in articles like Cross of Gold speech (an FA) and Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (GA, now FAC!)
    • That's fair enough.
• "This put Stone's supporters in a difficult position. They were forced to choose between Hardin, who was seen as a pawn of the railroads, or Goebel. " Merge these sentences.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "three hand-picked Goebel Democrats" -> "three hand-picked pro-Goebel Democrats"
  • Sure; done; better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly have selected these 7 references, and have provided the source's text, as well as the text of the article.

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Are the spot-checks fine. Anything else? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it all looks good. Great job! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]