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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

All the images have acceptable copyright and all of them are captioned. History6042 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are really the only editor contributing to this page. You can't edit war yourself so that is good. History6042 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't really supportive of the party or clearly against it. History6042 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article follows MoS and flows well. It also covers all major points and isn't unfocused. History6042 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement that needs an inline citation has one. History6042 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig found nothing wrong with the article for copyright violations. History6042 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the first ten sources seem reliable. History6042 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with sources 11 through 20. History6042 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 is correct. History6042 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 is good as well. History6042 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with 4, 5, and 6. History6042 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 is good. History6042 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is 8. I think I have checked enough for a source spot check. I am going to pass this, good job. History6042 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]