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: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·


Solid work and pretty exhaustive. Good on you for maintaining NPOV despite supporting the party, too. Just some copy tweaks to be done. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 16:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Thanks for your comments. I've made some changes. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 18:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

History[edit]

Symbols[edit]

Spot checks[edit]

Images[edit]

There are three images, each CC-licensed. The first is cropped from the original. (Nice grab on the one from Wilbur Ross's official Twitter.) The party symbols in the infobox are below the threshold of originality. All have alt text.

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.