# Talk:Austin Meehan

This review is transcluded from Talk:Austin Meehan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Comments will be forthcoming over the next couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Concerns addressed.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
All concerns addressed.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
No source formatting issues
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Sources are reliable; "ancestry.com", which I wouldnt' have usually accepted, looks like it's just a hosting site for reliable primary documents.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Spotchecks raised a couple of issues, now cleared up.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
No extraneous material
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No stability issues.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
No caption issues.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
All comments addressed, passing shortly.


### Comments
I wouldn't start a paragraph with "He played..."; name the subject in a new paragraph
"Financial success gave him independence" this is ambiguous as written; without the second half of the sentence, it sounds like he's independent from his parents. Any way to clarify what "independence" was in this case without straying into OR?
AFAIK "Politico" is colloquial; how about the more usual "early political career" as a section title?
Can you clarify what Meehan means by "dead heads"? The best known use of the term is for these poeple...
"win the next election" which election?
I meant to what elected office/body
I think he meant the whole ticket, not just one office. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"Meehan and Crossan reconciled," perhaps "Meehan and Crossan later reconciled,", for flow?
"bolting the party"; "bolting" is odd, here, to me. I'd suggest simply "leaving".
" leader of the 35th ward": "leader" is ambiguous; do you mean councilman?
"he tried for the": I'd prefer "ran" over "tried", given that this is an election.
"noting that" is too heavy a use of Wikipedia's voice, as it implies it was a fact. If we're providing inline attribution, I'd recommend "stated" or "said" or "wrote".
"allegations of insider corruption began to attach to Meehan's name" seems rather contorted. "Allegations of insider corruption were made about Meehan" or equivalent would be better.
Last sentence of "Sheriff" has two changes of direction; "nonetheless", then "but". Would flow better if broken up.
Thank you for your comments so far. I've made these changes, which I think should answer your points. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Looking forward to the rest of them! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Just one reply above. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Resuming, "mounted another anti-corruption campaign" implies that it was a campaign against corruption, rather than an election campaign in which corruption was the major theme.
"100,000 vote majorities" implies multiple elections; which ones are you referring to?
"blasted" is verging on journalese.
Do we know why Meehan didn't run for a third term?
"Meehan backed the primary victors..." maybe clarify with "in the general election"?
"Harold Stassen, was selected..." in this case, the reverse; clarify that this is a primary.
"honored statewide by being named" why not simply "named"?
Spotchecked Madonna and McLarnon; I'm not seeing stuff about the 1951 election on page 62
That source also has a considerable amount of detail that it wouldn't hurt to add to the article. At 1300 words I think it meets my own arbitrary minimum for a GA, so I'm not going to fail it if you don't, but it's all there in a single place so it shouldn't be hard.
Some of the paraphrasing is a little too close for comfort. " quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the source, "quickly degenerated into a name-calling contest" in the article. I'd suggest double-checking anything that isn't plain statement of fact. I can't check very many more sources; most require a subscription.
Spotchecked 26, looks okay.
I made these changes, including adding some details from the article you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Looks good. Two final points, looking at the lead; a) it's a bit short, and b) the phrase "power broker" does not appear in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
True. I made that change and fleshed out the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: To be honest, I don't like "political boss" much, either; what does the term even mean? I think any meaning in it is entirely redundant to the final lead sentence. In the interests of getting this through quickly, I have simply trimmed that fragment, so that I can pass this. If you disagree, we can continue to discuss it, but I really think that based on what you have in the body, "influential member" and "unofficial head of the Republican party" is as far as you can go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)