Talk:Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial Comments - GA Review (by PrairieKid)

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Howdy- I'd be happy to review this article. I should have some general comments starting within the next day or so. Thanks! PrairieKid (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies. I'm really sorry. I just let this go and that wasn't fair to you. I will begin with initial comments immeidately.

Initial Comments

Lead

Lead is a bit long, but can't think of anything to cut. I'd say it's pretty good.

  • Does it comply with WP:LEDE? I think it's an adequate summary of the article's content per WP:LEDE, so "bit too long" doesn't tell me anything that I can work with.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... It really is fine. It seems long, but everything is necessary so it is fine. Sorry for the confusion and redundancy. 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonial Lieutenant Governors

  • I think a link for propriety period would help.
  • What happened between 1710 and 1755?
  • Reply Nothing really, just that only two people have ever been appointed directly as "Lieutenant Governor"...one when the state first came under royal authority (and the idea of a royal governor and a lieutenant gov were new), the second when the king and government saw that the royal governor was ill. The rest of the time, the president of the council assumed the vacancy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would still like there to be some explanation of that... Why was there the one, and nothing happened after that for 40 years, before another one, and then nothing happened for 250 years? PrairieKid (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's adequately discussed. I've addressed the conventions/institutions (LG vs. succession by council president, later senate president) are discussed, and how they filled the defined role, the specific circumstances of the two appointed LGs are discussed. To go beyond what is already adequately provided is discursively against the intention of WP:SUMMARY and would be excessive detail against criteria 3b.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK- I disagree, but understand your points, and will let it go. PrairieKid (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - added a brief paragraph about what happened in between.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern creation of the office (2001–present)

Political Situation before 2001
  • Governor of New Jersey could be linked here.

Seems good besides that

I am very sorry, but I have to go to work. I will leave you with this, and continue tonight. Again, I am really sorry. PrairieKid (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation and Succession Controversies (2001-2006)
  • This could use one more summary paragraph at the end... I feel like it is a little abrupt to go from the reasons to have a LG to a whole new section.

Beyond that, everything is good so far.

  • I don't think one is necessary. Judge it according to the criteria--namely do I cover the major aspects, and is it clear and confusing--not whether you would do it differently. See WP:GACN--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a and 1b both cover whether the article follows MOS and is well-written... I know the criteria. I've done this a few times before. I'm here to help you, and ensure that this article meets those criteria, and it is my discretion as a reviewer as to whether I will be lenient or strict- so long as I stick to the criteria. You're being quite rude there. I'm doing you (and readers of WP) a favor here. I like doing it and I learn a lot. That doesn't mean I don't deserve a bit more respect or that I do deserve snarky comments. A summary paragraph is needed for better flow. As it is, there are an unusual (but understandable) amount of lists. PrairieKid (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to disagree. Claiming "flow" is meaningless because one person's flow is another's clog. It's a subjective judgment that is different for each reader. Essentially, you are stating that you would write it differently (thus, WP:GACN), not judging it as to whether it is clear and concise which is the only judgment asked for by the criteria. There is nothing in the criteria stating "must have a summary paragraph at the end". I wrote it this way. You'd write it differently. That's not a criteria judgment, that's a preference/aesthetics judgment and it ignores what WP:GACN says..."judge on whether it's clear and concise, not whether you'd write it differently". As for lists, these aren't indiscriminate lists, and the structure I've provided in this section is deemed appropriate per MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Appropriate use of lists. If it's your discretion to impose an understanding of the criteria that is beyond the criteria, there is always GA reassessment and second opinions. It's not rude to disagree and to state my reasons directly why I disagree. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referendum on a constitutional amendment
  • The actual names of the legislation are not necessary and can lead to confusion. I also don't think it is necessary to say how many abstained, which also hurts the general flow of that paragraph.
  • It is a political process. There should be discussion of the specifics of political process--including names of legislative bills, vote tallies, etc. In a World Series game, you talk about strikes and balls and RBIs and pitch counts. In politics, you discuss the facts and stats of the process. I disagree with your assessment that this is confusing. I would assert that I have addressed this process discussion quite clearly--clearer and far more concise than it could have been.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You cited twice above. Please follow it yourself. The specific bill names are not necessary. PrairieKid (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to disagree. This is a political process, I've provided clear, cited information about the process. You cannot state how this is confusing or not clear--just that you would prefer it addressed differently. WP:GACN again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2009 gubernatorial election
  • In the second paragraph, the Independent is treated differently. The 3rd sentence lacks parallelism.

Good besides that.

  • What do you mean by "lacks parallelism"? Is the sentence not clear or is it confusing? (again, WP:GACN) I'm thinking this is an insignificant quibble that has nothing to do with the GA criteria. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parallelism is a grammatical term. It affects flow and and prose. Yes, it does have to do with the criteria. PrairieKid (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware what Parallelism is regarding poetry, rhetoric, etc., but I don't think it has anything to do with the criteria. And unless you're going to point to something specific that you want changed (something that directly affects the passage's clarity and concision), just repeating the 9th-grade English word du jour does not make this actionable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I post this so you'll have a little more to work with. PrairieKid (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional provisions

Qualifications and duties

Looks good to me...

Order of Succession

Also good.

Overall

The Good
  • Well-cited throughout
  • Well=written for the most part
  • Good focus, structure and chronological outline
  • Not too much more needs to be done
The Bad
  • A few sentence structures need to be changed.
  • What specific sentences? And how are they not clear/concise per criteria, or are these revisions by preference (WP:GACN)? --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a summarry... The sentences are listed above.
  • A little more on the old lieutenant-governorship would be nice

The Ugly

N/A


This article is in great shape already. With a few tweaks, it will easily meet the criteria. I'll get started on the rubric now too. PrairieKid (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article is nearly there.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Beyond a few sentence structures, it is good.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Very good citations throughout. I was very impressed.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Just a little more in the history section will do it.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yep.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Mhmm.
  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):
    Oh yeah.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm placing this article on hold for 7 days. Changes must be made by November 2 for this article to pass. If they're made earlier, let me know. I'll be checking in periodically. Thanks for all the work already put in to the article! PrairieKid (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PrairieKid: - I addressed your comments above. I disagree with you matters that I think are not required by the GA criteria.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PrairieKid: Request your comments on the above responses, since I disagree with the necessity of some your assessments vis-à-vis the GA criteria.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments DO address the criteria. During this process, you've been a bit rude. I know the criteria. I've done this before, and written a couple GAs myself. I get it. What I also get is that my work is not perfect. There are things that could be wrong with it. As closely as I might have studied the GAC, and attempted to get the article to meet those criteria, another editor is bound to find a few spots that are not GA material yet. This is probably the best GAN I've reviewed. It started in much better quality than most. That does not mean it started as a GA.
Further, even if my comments did not address GAC, you could politely (notice how that is the only bold word on this page) say that, but thank me for giving what still is constructive criticism. You're comments on the page seem to hint that you have prioritized getting an article to GA status over improving the article. 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @PrairieKid: - Your assumption that I don't want to improve the article is baseless and offensive. I just do not agree with you on certain points that are not in any way "necessary" as I've established above. If you decide to refuse GA status based on the points that I don't think necessary above, there's always GA reassessment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second opinion requested through adjusting the template status on the talk page (above), and at the GA discussion board.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001

I'd be happy to provide input from a third-party. This is an article about an interesting historical predicament, and thank you for your edits to it on Wikipedia. However, as it stands I believe this article needs some improvement before it is promoted to GA status. LT910001 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


As a comment on the interviewing process thus far, I feel that one cause for disagreement above has been the failure to substantiate claims. I would also note that there is no requirement for GA to be directed towards improving the article, which is fair enough. In that case, an accurate and substantiated summary can be provided without acrimony and the review completed accordingly. If there are issues that are preventing nomination I would advise stating these directly and substantiating them and then progressing ahead in a reasonable time-frame. On the other hand, I do feel that this article needs work, and I've documented this below: LT910001

Assessment

(talk) 10:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is much clearer.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. 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). Resolved.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Discusses the main issue.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Does not go into unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Specific commentary

The following sentences are uncited:

  • "Kean's proposal was not successful."
  • "That there potentially would be a lack of continuity ... with those of the preceding governor."
  • Done cited with fn23 from New Jersey Policy Perspective..."Shure, John. "The People Should..." --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Christie's election as governor, Kim Guadagno would become the state's first Lieutenant Governor in its modern form on January 19, 2010."
  • Done - split, revised, both new sentences cited.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

  • "Colonial lieutenant governors" would benefit from a rearrangement that presents the governerships of the two men, and then follows with a short biography (rather than visa-versa)
  • Reply: Unfortunately as for their governorships there is little to report. Ingoldesby was thrown out a year later (and what little he did, I've mentioned), and Pownall never became governor. His role was merely waiting for Belcher to die, and he moved to a better job just before Belcher died. It's chronological, and changing it from chronological narrative I'd think would be add confusing regarding timeline. I'll consider. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of Lieutenant Governors" is incomplete. It's stated earlier that there have been three in total.
  • Reply The list is for the modern form of the office--and it is unlikely it will change with the election next week, so there won't be a second modern-form LG until 2018 apparently. There's one in the list of the office in its modern form. The previous two are discussed earlier in the article. Would it be appropriate to rename it "List of Lieutentant Governors in the modern era" or "List of modern LGs" or "List of LGs (2009-present)"--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there have only been three LGs in total, I think it would make the list more comprehensive (and certainly help illustrate what's been said in the article), if the list were expanded. However, I don't believe this would be relevant to a GA review. LT910001 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I added the two colonial governors in the list table by splitting the list into two sections and the colonial list has a slightly different format.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks much more comprehensive. LT910001 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is structured chronologically and at first blush appears to have a big gap. On read this is filled, but suggest rename "Political situation before 2001" to "Interim" and make it a standalone section to resolve this.
  • Reply" I will spin it off as a standalone section. But do you have a better descriptive idea for a section title? Something that conveys the political situation spanning to 2001. I feel "Political situation before 2001" is far more descriptive even despite its flaws. "Interim" is not. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially Done - section split off, partial...pending thinking of and waiting suggestion for a better section name. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's certainly better. I feel either renaming all three sections: "Colonial Lieutenant Governors (17xx-17xx)", "Interim (17xx-200x)", "Modern Lieutenant Governors (200x-)" may help structure the article. An alternate title to "Interim" may be "Vacancy", however these are just suggestions. Unfortunately I can't guarantee a timely reply to most of these comments, I I've been trying to maintain a semi-quiescent Wikistate and only give input as a secondary reviewer. Apologies! LT910001 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't find "Interim" or "Vacancy" descriptive enough--"interim" in the US connotes a "temporary" replacement, like a church has an "interim pastor" after one retires until they find their next permanent minister, and 230 years isn't temporary. "Vacancy" implies that the position was empty and waiting to be filled--the position didn't exist. So, considering I think both of them are insufficiently descriptive and inaccurate by connotations for these reasons, I'll keep it as "Political situation before 2001" for the interim (no pun intended). I have a few ideas in my thoughts about incorporating something about "succession", but haven't worked out the kinks on a proper, pithy phrase to replace the current section title. I'll keep thinking about this section title going forward.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points as to why not to rename. I still think that the titles are impacting on readability. How about this option:
  • rename "Colonial lieutenant governers" to "Colonial appointments". This will make it clear there wasn't a system, and appointment was quite arbitrary. No need to include the words "LG", as that's implied by the topic.
  • Done - renamed it to "Appointments during the colonial period (1702-1776)"--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename "Political situation before 2001" to something like "Succession without lieutenant governers" to highlight that you're talking about who would succeed the state president in the absence of the LG position.
  • Done renamed it to "Gubernatorial succession (1776-2001)".--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

  • Duplication of information is impacting on readability. For example: "The legacy of the Senate president assuming the governorship has its origins in the colonial institution where the President of the Governor's Council would fill a vacancy. ". Readability would be enhanced if information was assumed to be read in a chronological order.
  • "This tradition was enshrined " (the tradition of the legacy of the Senate president assuming the covernership?) I am unsure what this means. Secondly, this needs a secondary-source. Primary sources have been cited to support "this tradition was enshrined." To make that assertion needs a secondary source.
  • Done - revised for clarification.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Regarding secondary source, per the revision, I assert a secondary source is not required here, per WP:PSTS: " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's readability is impacted by sentences that contain many clauses. For example: "However, in 1702, the proprietors of New Jersey's two provincial governments—East Jersey and West Jersey—surrendered their political authority to Queen Anne who transformed both provinces into one crown colony to be administered by a Royal Governor appointed by the monarch and sent from England to reside in the province" For a reader unfamiliar with the subject this is confusing. This could be remedied by splitting longer sentences into two sentences
  • Done (did this a few days ago, forgot to tag it).--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous information occasionally could be cut to enhance readability -> "The convention did not approve of Driscoll's proposal and continued the tradition of a state senate's president filling a gubernatorial vacancy in the state's third constitution" -> "Driscoll's proposal was not approved." (the status quo has already been mentioned).
  • "held at Rutgers University in New Brunswick". I don't feel this is necessary.
  • Reply not done--that's for the reader to decide if they benefit from it, I err on the side of inclusion and consider this arguable and rather inconsequential.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. LT910001 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "proposals for a lieutenant governor was raised and rejected" was -> were
  • "Article V, Section I, paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution, as amended, in 2005 " - 2006?
  • Done - replaced with "effective January 17, 2006" from the constitution. 2005 was referring, incorrectly to the election day referendum.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to creating a the ... governor was considered the most powerful elected chief executive in the United States.[12][13][14]" written in past and present tense makes this quite confusing to read.
  • Tautologies impacting on readability:
  • Odd choice of words:
    • "was set to elect " -> "elected" or didn't.

Lede

  • The lede is very large, about 1/4 of the article's size. Suggest remove some of the extraneous content to the body of the article

Conclusion

This article could be improved if:

  • Lede was trimmed
  • Information was included in chronological order only.
  • References were included
  • Colonial era governors section is refactored in chronological order rather than by governer
  • Sentences with many clauses are split
  • Extraneous information is provided in separate sentences or removed.
  • Miscellaneous grammar is fixed.

I would not support promotion to GA status at this time until issues regarding readability are addressed. I'm not going to provide a completely comprehensive review as I'm not primary reviewer, but I hope this goes some way in explaining the assessment I have provided above. I hope this is helpful. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • LT910001 - thanks for some specific and actionable comments. I'll see what I can address. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might take me a day or two to address all of these concerns. Work and all. But I'll attend to these as soon as I can.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working through these. I still feel that the article is not up to the readability standards required by the GA. I hope you don't mind (I am happy to fail the review if you want another reviewer), but there is still work to be done. I stated above I wouldn't provide a comprehensive review, but I think I may as you've been so responsive and I feel it's only fair to work through what issues I believe are remaining to get to GA.LT910001 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

General issues

  • Per WP:JOBTITLES, job titles in generic form don't need to be capitalised. This relates to the first criteria of the review (relevant MOS guidelines).
  • Done -- several dozen references lowercased. only remaining capitalised form is specific mentions and as capitalised in quotes.

Constitutional provisions

  • I have made a few small alterations in keeping with the above comment, so as to speed up this review.
  • This statement "typically held on Tuesday in the first full week in June," is not supported by the constitution. Suggest remove.

2009 gubernatorial election

  • I cannot make head or tail of this paragraph: "New Jersey was set to elect its first Lieutenant Governor in the 2009 election. On June 25, 2009, Governor Corzine signed a bill from the legislature (A.3902) to clarify a clause of the constitutional provisions concerning the selection of the lieutenant governor.[39][40] The amendment provided a deadline for a gubernatorial candidate to select a running-mate within 30 days after the "nomination".[40] However, it was necessary for the law to clarify that deadline as "30 days after primary results are certified by the secretary of state, not the primary election itself."[40] The bill also reduced the number of days in which the June primary election results must be certified from 86 days (which would place the deadline in August) to the fourth Friday in June less than 4 weeks after the election.[40] This bill moved the 2009 deadline from July 2 to July 27.[40]". I don't know what is meant by "within 30 days after the 'nomination'", nor what is being clarified, nor what "must be certified" means and how this relates to LGs. Sorry! LT910001 (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll rewrite that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I've rewritten it to elaborate more on what the meaning of this is, it's still a little legalistic but it is discussing law so I think that's forgivable. Let me know if this allows you to make heads or tails of it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum on a constitutional amendment

  • I have made a few small alterations to speed up this review. LT910001 (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will update review of "Modern creation of the office " within a day... LT910001 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a hell of a week so it took me a few days to attend to some of the comments--and I plan to address the rest of these tonight and tomorrow as I get spare time. Thanks for keeping up with this and for excellent focused comments. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying, I'm happy to wait if you need to attend to personal matters. In addition I myself will have to wait until at or after the 14th before I continue this review. --LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks LT, I'll have the revision work wrapped up before you get back on the 14th. I'm planning to take a little time this evening to finish as much as I can.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PrairieKid: - do you have any remaining issues with this article? I have to revise one more paragraph that LT910001 mentioned as a little confusing and I will be done with LT's comments (LT should be back on 14 November to review my responses to his comments).--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: - I think I've resolved the issues and comments that you've posted above, do let me know when you get back on 14NOV13 or thereafter. Thanks again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've returned from my wikibreak and had a re-look at the article. I've tried to completely reformat the citations to make them consistent and enhance the readability. Additionally, I've removed one or two in-text references to articles of the constitution that were already duplicated in citations, in order to enhance readability. I feel this article has improved in leaps and bounds. I have updated the assessment table to reflect my new assessment, and feel this article will progress to GA soon. --LT910001 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Unfortunately there are one or two issues that persist.

  • "Jump up ^ N.J.S.A. 19:2-1, N.J.S.A. 19:23-40" I am not sure to what act this refers. Suggest that if this all follows one act, a similar formatting it used.
  • Reply: Different legal documents, different type of citations. These are proper legal citations for statute law in NJ. Chicago/Turabian (which is rather consistently used for the rest of the article) defers to the standard used in the courts when addressing legal documents, case law, statute and regulations. N.J.S.A. = New Jersey Statutes Annotated, sometimes the state refers to them as "R.S." -- R.S. = N.J.S.A. Either abbreviation is acceptable, although NJSA is used more frequently. Now the act itself is referred to by its designation as a Bill or Act when in the legislative process, but after promulgated by the governor becomes preserved as an instrument in "P.L." which is the "Public Law" - however that is for historical purposes and PL doesn't have the force of statute. In NJ, acts only provide for the revision (by addition, amendment or removal) of statutory law. Each section of an act addresses the revision or creation of a specific statute within the state's statutes. Election law in NJ is in Title 19 which includes statutes going back to the 1930s still in effect. These passages 19:2-1, 23-40 are the codified statutes. There are no issues with these citations, and given the nature of the article, the use of Chicago/turabian along with standard legal citations is not inconsistent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jump up ^ Lt. Gov. Guadagno collects a salary of $141,000 per annum (cabinet-level/principal department head's statutory rate) based on her role as the New Jersey Secretary of State. See: WHYY (Philadelphia). "Lt. Gov. of NJ also named Sec. of State" (December 17, 2009). Retrieved August 30, 2013." replace with the citation alone (not the 'see...')
  • This paragraph "In 2005, the state legislature passed a constitutional amendment that created the post of lieutenant governor. This was put before the voters as a public question on the November 8, 2005 general election ballot, as per constitutional requirements. [36]" is cited only by the constitution. No source is provided to demonstrate the November 8, 2005 issue.
  • Done - fn.36-38. I must have removed or moved a previous citation.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, it would be nice if the citations were consistent, but that's not a requirement of the review. I hope we can promote this article soon.
  • Reply: I have to revert your conversion from manual citations to template citations. That kind of bold move is frowned upon and a violation of WP:CITEVAR. The article was consistently 100% manual citations. As for styles, the article employs Chicago/Turabian rather consistently, and when appropriate legal citations (which C/T defers to). Wikipedia differs with its MOS advising to format internet page sources differently than the style guides. If you have a problem with punctuation or order of information in a citation, point it out, but please adhere to WP:CITEVAR which defers to the first major contributor's styles and advises to avoid such conversions between manual and template formats unilaterally. Citations are generally consistent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Right! I apologise for altering the citations without consultation and messing up your citation scheme, I was unhappy with the inconsistent formatting (rather than the citation style), and due to real life matters really couldn't have spent much more time with you on this review. There are no hard feelings for your revert, which is quite justified (!). That said, I've had a look over the article now and feel that it meets or exceeds the GA criteria, so I've made the relevant changes to the article and talk page, the table above, and the GA list. Additionally it has been a pleasure to conduct this review with you, but a lot more time-consuming than I first thought a 'second opinion' would be and that's contributed somewhat to these last few hurdles. Well done on creating this thoroughly interesting article, and I wish you all the best on your wiki-travels. Kind regards. --LT910001 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat vs. Democratic

A user has changed the usage of the adjective Democrat with Democratic despite the fact that the style guides used by NJ's major newspapers indicates the former, and northeastern dialects of American English (several spoken in NJ) prefer the usage of Democrat.(ref: Frederic Gomes Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. eds, Dictionary of American Regional English: Volume 2 (1991) pp. 37-38, 1036).--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Lieutenant_Governor_of_New_Jersey/GA1"