Contents

Talk:1963 Philadelphia municipal election

1963 Philadelphia municipal election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 4, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philadelphia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:1963 Philadelphia municipal election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 16:27, 4 March 2020 (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):

   This article has the same writing style as the 1951 Philadelphia municipal election, 1955 Philadelphia municipal election, and 1959 Philadelphia municipal election which are current FA and GA status.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR): d(copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have looked into the 23 references on the page and all of them contain the information that is in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

   This article covers all of the elections that happened in 1963. The mayoral and city council sections are reasonably long.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no political or personal bias in this article in favor of Republicans or Democrats.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The last edits made to this page (excluding mine) were made in January and the page has been in its current state for months.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article has multiple images clearly showing the results of the election by ward (interesting that you were able to find that information) for the mayoral and city council elections.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Looking at this page I see no difference in quality between it and the previous municipal election pages that you have brought up to GA and FA status. There is a neutral point of view, an adequate image amount, reasonable long, all of the references contain the information in the article, and there are no glaring grammatical or informational mistakes present. Incredible work you have done here @Coemgenus: