Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The writing is very well done for the most part, however there are some sentences that could use clarification. Also, there are some places that were clearly writen in 2012 that haven't been changed, so a once over for proper tense would go far (I've tried to list as many as I found below but I may have missed some)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead and use of lists need work, see below.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   See comments 1 and 4 below

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   See comment 5 below

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   7 days pending revisions

Comments

Criterion 1

• The caucuses allocated delegates to the respective state delegations to the national convention, but the actual election of the delegates were many times at a later date. I have no clue what this sentence means, please clarify.

• The lead is far too long. A general rule of thumb is about 4 well written paragraphs as a lead that is too imposing can cause readers to lose interest. For example, the Super Tuesday paragraph is a little too much information. If that were deleted, I think the lead would be much more readable and manageable. See WP:LEAD for more info

• Nine other states have small numbers of uncommitted delegates. The tense here does not match the tense of the rest of the list.

• Timeline sections have bullet points at the beginning that need to be removed or incorperated into the prose per MOS:EMBED and WP:USEPROSE

• The persons on this slate was elected delegates at the April 1 state convention. This sentence is unclear because of the tense.

• The elected delegates have stated that they will divide up in such a way they reflect the caucus result, even if that means to vote for a candidate other than the one they support. Tense here is different from the rest of the paragraph.

• ...therefore our table does not show popular vote percentages in these rows but the number of delegates committed to each candidate This should be stated closer to the table, not in the prose. Also, first person feels weird and unencyclopedic.

• he or her both should be nominative

• while eight delegates was committed to Romney, two to Santorum and one to Paul. Subject verb agreement

• take the fight to the much more deep-pocketed and organized Romney This is poorly worded and should be revised.

• The primary elections take place from January 3 to July 14 and will allocate and elect 2,286 voting delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates in 56 delegations to the 2012 Republican National Convention in the week of August 27. Event already passed, so it should not be referred to in the future tense.

• This means that the binding status of a delegate only become of importance if no candidate have reached an majority of delegates before the National Convention. This sentence is awkwardly worded and has a couple of typos. Please revise.

• Except from Wyoming county conventions all these conventions are at the state and district level. I don't understand what this sentence means.

Other Criteria

1. Ron Paul surged to the lead in Iowa but questions regarding racially insensitive material included in newsletters he published... This needs a citation per WP:BLP as it's controversial and refers to Paul who is still alive.

2. brought an ongoing federal lawsuit is the lawsuit still ongoing in 2015? I couldn't find anything on it so if it is still ongoing a source should be provided.

3. Ohio Republican central committee will decided how to allocate the four unallocated delegates in April. This needs to be updated as I doubt they will be allocating their delegates from 2012 in April of 2016.

4. The citation for this sentence: Former Family Research Council chief Gary Bauer, who was present at the sit-down with Santorum, called it a strategy meeting. is The Blaze which I'm unsure of as a reliable source looking at its front page, and particularly when compared to the caliber of sources surrounding it.

5. The following nonfree images are lacking a fair use rational for this page. They must either have one provided or be removed:
   1. Rick Santorum Logo
   2. Ron Paul Logo
   3. Newt Gingrich Logo

Result

On Hold for 7 days pending changes. Length may be extended depending on progress. All editors should be very proud of their work on such a comprehensive article. Wugapodes (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice of seven days, pending. I've read through the article and it brings back great memories of the campaigns of 2012. Jack Bornholm of Denmark made fantastic contributions (and edits), albeit I helped him w/spelling, at times. Just now, I've read through the Article herein, and it looks great to me--no changes needed (except as noted with grant permissions.) I don't think text needs to be clarified. I'm believing that the great graphic of "Delegate Vote Map for Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention" on the TALK page here, can remain, since WP readers/editors can see in here, not in the article. Thanks for compliments and the review! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Charles Edwin Shipp: while the article is well written for the most part, I do feel that I cannot pass the article without a number of the changes being addressed or at least talked through (ie, why a particular comment shouldn't be acted on). You don't have to be the one to do it if you don't want to; no one is required to participate in a GA review. If you'd like to be involved in the process, addressing the comments, either fixing or saying why they shouldn't be fixed, would be helpful (especially the problems with WP:RS and WP:BLP). If you don't want to that's perfectly fine, just let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew I was not addressing properly; I'll read through for date/tense first; wishing Jack Bornholm would help with other requirements, such as the three pictures. Thanks! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

After making a few minor grammatical changes in the lede, I clicked on 'history' and see other WP editors making improvements. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold Extended until 20 July pending changes to the article. Wugapodes (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not Listed as the nominator appears to be inactive, the other editor I notified seems to be busy with other topics, and no changes have been made since the extension. An editor can always renominate, however I would strongly recommend addressing a number of these aspects before doing so. Wugapodes (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)