Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the
January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own
right here.
I am working to answer this question as we speak. --
West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I have added in additional content regarding the 1910 Republican nominee selection process, in which Lilly lost to incumbent Hughes. Please let me know if this works, or if more or less detail is needed. Thanks again! --
West Virginian (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:LARGENUM, the significant sums described in this section should be rounded, as it doesn't appear that there's any significant reason to include the exact dollar and cent amounts
Thank you for this suggestion! I rounded the dollar amounts, and also rounded the converted amounts in the inflation template. --
West Virginian (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Later political career
No comma needed after "for the Republican nomination"
A little more description on why the feud began would be nice
Added info on the beginning of the feud in the attorney general section and then modified the wording in the later political career section. Please let me know if this works! --
West Virginian (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Business affairs
the asbestos roof paint "Leak Not" to prevent leaks and black metal paint "Rust Not" to prevent rust. confusing syntax
I changed to "which manufactured the asbestos roof paint, "Leak Not", and the black metal paint, "Rust Not"." Please let me know if this works better. --
West Virginian (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Later life and death
"which exceeded 20,000 attendees on its second day, and had notable attendees including" → "which exceeded 20,000 attendees on its second day. Notable attendees included"
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
GhostRiver, I truly appreciate you taking the time to perform this thorough and comprehensive review for this GAN! The article is much improved because of your suggestions and recommendations, and I have addressed them all in the article. Please review and let me know if there are any outstanding issues that I can address in the meantime. Again, I appreciate your time and expertise! --
West Virginian (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you for making those changes, happy to pass! — GhostRiver 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
GhostRiver, it was a pleasure working with you throughout this process and I look forward to working with you again soon! Thanks again! —
West Virginian (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply