# Talk:Stanley Plan

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley plan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Will review. Am starting first read-through today. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I have only three comments before observing the formalities. They are minor drafting points and do not affect the decision to promote the article.

Post-recess maneuvering
I wonder if "stymie" is a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia article? Perhaps "thwart" or some similarly conventional word?
"By September 9, however, it was clear that that Stanley plan was only holding onto a minority of legislative voters" – should the first "that" be "the" (but perhaps you refer to that particular version of the plan – in which case you might clarify). And oughtn't "onto" be "on to" in this context?
You might add some alt text to the images; it isn't compulsory for GA, but is good practice.
This article, in my opinion, clearly meets all the GA criteria (and looks to me like an FA in waiting). An interesting and informative piece, well balanced, neutral and readable.
If you care to deal with the above minor points before I cut the ribbon, all the better. Otherwise I will proceed regardless. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I believed I've addressed the above points. Alt text may be something to consider should this ever go for FAC of course..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A fine article. It looks to me to be FAC material with very little extra work.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Tim riley (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After a certain amount of dithering I've listed this on the GA page under Cases and domestic law, but if the authors think it should be under Constitutional or any other sub-head, please feel free to move it on that page. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I drafted an article about the Gray Commission, which has a somewhat lengthy discussion here. I suggest moving much of that discussion into the new article which, for example, includes not only a link to the report, but also a list of the members, which shows the large number of legislative bios that have yet to be written as well as their geographical locations not cited in the refs herein.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)