it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[3]
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[4]
You are the first reviewer I have encountered that did not consider such an item of information authoritative when given on the relevant organization's own web site. Magic♪piano20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses third-party sources for claims such as charitable contributions of historic figures. This source is the library's "About Us" section. Wikipedia allows the use of this source for claims about the subject itself on the article about the subject however, sourcing claims about other subjects must be independent of both the library itself and the subject of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, given that the page was accessible through the archive when I set it up... I've found the current location for the DANFS link. Magic♪piano18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality
"..a period that notably included the primarily naval Spanish–American War". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias. notably should be removed and that should read: "..a period that included the Spanish–American War..." Done by reviewer. Is this acceptable to nominator?
"...which were relatively undistinguished". Editorializing. Adding opinion of either the editor or the author. This must be removed or reworded to be the claim of the author with attribution by name in the text with the reference.
"..,and in a politically calculated move" Editorializing. Adding opinion of either the editor or the author. This must be removed or reworded to be the claim of the author with attribution by name in the text with the reference.
^Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
^Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
^Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
^The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided.