Talk:Mike McLachlan

sources

See WP:RS. Sources which do not even mention a person are rarely usable to say anything at all in a BLP. Sources should be reliable secondary sources, and self-written material is problematic in any BLP. Collect (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike McLachlan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Riley1012 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike McLachlan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will take on this for review. I will have the review up within a week. -Riley1012 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riley1012 No problem,, take your time. I've been waiting this long already. Jon698 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience @Jon698: I have left my comments below. The bullet points contain my suggested changes. -Riley1012 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1. Well-written
The article complies with Manual of Style guidelines, and the prose is clear.

  • They lived in San Antonio, Dayton, and Pittsburgh during he first five years of his life. Pretty sure there is a typo- should be "the" instead of "he"
@Riley1012: The "they" refers to his family rather than just himself. Jon698 (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the second part of the sentence. I just went in and fixed it myself. -Riley1012 (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable
The majority of the article uses independent sources, although there are two self-published sources. My assessment is that these are fine to use per WP:SELFSOURCE because they are mainly used to fill in details about his education and military service, for which there's no reason to doubt the authenticity of.
Earwig's doesn't show any obvious copyright violations. Spotcheck: 1, 5, 9, 12, 22, and 26 - all support the information and do not show copyright violations.

  • All of the Election data sources are now dead URLs, please add archives, if possible.
  • Can you add website names to the McLachlan 2014 and McLachlan 2016 citations so a reader can easily identify where the information is from
All of these requests done in these 1 and 2 edits. Jon698 (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad

  • Add a sentence briefly describing the outcome of Hill v. Colorado. And note that this was a Supreme Court case (like you do in the lead).
  • Unless there's more to add in the Political positions section, I think this information should just be moved to the Colorado House of Representatives section.
  • On that note, were there any other notable votes/legislation during his time in office?
  • Add why there was an attempt at a recall election.
  • Is there anything notable to add about what he did after losing the election but before his death?
@Riley1012: Done in this edit. Sadly, due to his short tenure of two years he did not do that much in office. He was also not active afterwards, probably due to his age. Jon698 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral
This article is neutral in its tone and does not come off as biased.

5. Stable
I looked through the article's talk page and edit history to verify there are no ongoing edit conflicts.

6. Illustrated
No images to evaluate, unfortunately.

Thank you for the quick response, I will pass this article. -Riley1012 (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_McLachlan