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

Nominator: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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):

   I made some alterations to improve the article such as removing unnecessary adjectives.

2. 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 sources are valid and properly sourced. No original research or copyright violations found. I went through a couple dozen references for this. I thoroughly checked the election results sources of [1] when I was fixing the percentage results. For the content section I checked 2 to make sure that the text of the proposition was accurately copied and 3 so that the effects were accurately stated. For the remainder of the article I checked every five references starting with reference 11. Reference 11 accurately reflects Cuomo's actions, 16 accurately reflects the state legislative vote, 21, 26 reflects critiques of the new language, 31 (which I used to make some edits to the page) reflects campaign finance in the election, 36 is the results of a poll and there are no errors between the conversion, and 46 shows the NYT's coverage of the proposition winning in areas Trump won.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the text of the amendment, what it does, the history of putting it onto the ballot, the campaign, and results.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No neutrality problems.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Only two edits in March and none in February.

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):

   The county results are included and I do not believe that any other images are necessary for the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   @Rhododendrites: Pretty good and interesting article. Nice work. Jon698 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello @Rhododendrites: I will start my review of this page in a timely manner. It looks interesting. Jon698 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]