Talk:2020 Missouri Amendment 2/GA1

GA Review

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: Onegreatjoke (talk · contribs) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article to see if it can attain GA status. Comments should (hopefully) start coming tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: If you're up for it, I'm open to any criticism here. Feel free to add any non-GA comments (especially regarding what I wrote on this article's talk page about, not sure how relevant those are). I probably won't take this to FA, but I would like to see the issues which would hinder any future FA push by me. ~UN6892 ^t_c 14:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm finally done. Putting this on hold to combat the one issue I had with the citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, article looks good so approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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. (reference section):

   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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Prose

• "The initiative was on the August 4, 2020 primary ballot and passed with 53.27% of the vote." Comma after 2020
• " Republican lawmakers added work requirements to Medicaid expansions, which supporters aimed to prevent through proposing state constitutional amendments for future Medicaid expansions." Should probably say "by" instead of "through"

Background

• "that it would be unconstitutional to remove funding from states which did not wish to opt in." Should be a dash between opt and in.

Campaign

• "despite them not being elgible for Medicaid." Should be eligible.

That seems to be all for prose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

All  Done ~UN6892 ^t_c 00:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• [3] is good
• [7] is good
• [8] is good
• while [9] is good, "No on 2 in August campaigned against the initiative." isn't cited by source 9
• [1] is ggood
• [11] is good
• [14] is good
• [15] is good

@Onegreatjoke: I put source 5 at the end of the sentence. All issues should be addressed. ~UN6892 ^t_c 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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.