# Talk:2024 Minnesota House of Representatives district 27B special election

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2025 Alabama House of Representatives District 11 special election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 Minnesota House of Representatives District 27B special election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Roc0ast3r (talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Opm581 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Opm581, and I'll be reviewing this article. This is my first review, so I will be assisted by my mentor, @It is a wonderful world. I'll start evaluating the article sometime within the next few hours. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 23:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Opm581, I think this is a great pick for a first review! Here are two tips that newer reviewers sometimes struggle with:
It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas."
IAWW (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips, IAWW. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 02:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
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): 
There aren't any issues with the prose, and I didn't see any grammatical mistakes or spelling errors. It also follows MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 02:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
All of the paragraphs have citations to reliable sources. I looked at all of the sources, and all of them verify the claims in the article, except for source 13. This source is a link to the district's 2022 general election results, but the claim it's used for is the Democratic primary results. @Roc0ast3r: Please replace source 13 with a source that confirms the Democratic primary results. There aren't any other issues with the sourcing. I also looked for copyvios using Earwig's, and it didn't say that there were any. I also didn't notice any close paraphrasing while looking at the sources. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 10:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
@Opm581: Oops. Sorry about that! Went ahead and fixed it.  RONIN  TALK  13:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The source for the Democratic primaries is correct now. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 20:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
@It is a wonderful world: It looks like there's a lot of info about Rachel Davis's legal issues in the section about the Republican primary. I think this info might constitute unnecessary detail, but I'm not sure, so I'd like your input as to whether or not it's overly detailed.
Other than that, the major aspects of the election are covered, with the article covering the election's background, the primary elections, and the general election, while also providing information about the candidates and their campaigns. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 10:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Good question. Generally the weight given to each piece of information should be proportional to it's coverage in reliable sources on the subject of the article (WP:NPOV). Because of this, it's generally bad practice to cite that much information to only one source, unless there are very few sources on the subject matter. @Roc0ast3r, is there another source that covers that information that could be added? Otherwise I think it should be cut to around half its size to prevent overdetail. As a separate issue, these are BLP claims so they should have very strong sourcing anyways. Three high quality sources would be ideal here.
Annoyingly I can't go into anymore detail than that because the website is geolocked and it is blocking my VPN IP. IAWW (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any other sources that could be suitable. I went ahead and trimmed that section; a bit more than half however since there's a lack of sourcing for the claims.  RONIN  TALK  13:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for trimming it. I don't think that there are any other parts of the article that are overly detailed. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 00:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
I didn't see any non-neutral content in the article. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 00:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No edit wars or content disputes. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 10:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Both images are maps that were created by the article creator and have CC0 tags, so no need to worry about non-free use rationales or a lack of tags. The maps and their captions are both good. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 10:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Overall: @It is a wonderful world: Before I close this, I'd like to ask you if I made any mistakes during this review. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 00:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
@Opm581 It looks good to me, you justified passing every criteria well. Well done for catching the overdetail issue. @Roc0ast3r nice work creating the images in Inkscape!
I would be happy for this to pass. Do note that this is pretty much as simple as it gets with reviewing; the nomination was in really good shape already. If/when you do a more complicated review, feel free to ping me there. IAWW (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: Ok, and thank you for the help. I'll close this now, and I'll consider pinging you at a more complicated review in the future. @Roc0ast3r: Good job writing this article. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 11:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: