Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential primary campaign/GA1

Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am nominating "Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008" because the article has significantly improved since March 2008, with 332 links, 181,161 bytes, stable article and the article has been expanded greatly. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Ihave permission from johnpseudo.

I am taking a break from reviewing Good Article Nominations, but a few things you could work on while waiting for a review are:

Address the "citation needed" tag in the "Pre-announcement" section.
Give a reference for the "still fired up and ready to go" quotation in the "New Hampshire" section.
Source the final paragraph in the "New Hampshire" section (especially any quotations and statistics).
Source the second paragraph in the "Florida and Michigan" section.
Give a reference for the quotation starting with "We need sensible gun laws" in the "Pennsylvania" section.
Split up the "Endorsements" section so that it isn't just one long paragraph.
Format the references with all the necessary information. Each should have at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. An author and date should be given if possible.
Type the article's name (Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008) into the box at the top of this page: tools:~dispenser/view/Checklinks. Any dead links (if any) need to be replaced.

If these are fixed now, the review will go much quicker once someone agrees to take a look at it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and, check the article dablinks here, there's a few that need fixing. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issues now. Secret Saturdays (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still quite a few dead links. See http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008. All of the red links need to be fixed, and the rest of the colored links need to be checked. For the red links, the easiest fix is to type the url into http://www.archive.org/web/web.php and to add the url of an archived version of the page. There is also still a concern about the reference formatting. Some are still just bare urls with no other information, which is not sufficient for a Good Article. In addition, three links to disambiguation pages need to be fixed: frontrunner, Ben Rhodes, and Independence Park. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further inspection, the frontrunner link should stay as is, since the only page that discusses the term in the proper context is the disambiguation page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much easier way: Open page in Checklinks. Hide all non red entries. Click "(info)". A window will pop open with Wayback Machine results, the one in bold is the closest to the access date. If it is within something like two week it will automatically select that revision, otherwise you'll need to click "Use" (the corner will turn green). When done click "Save changes", a window will pop open with the diff, click "Save page". — Dispenser 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since the above comments were not meant to start an official review, I will review the GA nomination. On a very cursory first pass, there are still a number of dead links that need to be addressed. I will review the full article carefully and comment here over the next few days. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a thoroughly researched, well-organized, and well-written article which is clearly a great GA candidate. There are minor stylistic issues that should be addressed, none of which are serious and all of which could be addressed pretty quickly.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Overall, very well written. The are several stylistic issues to be addressed. Several paragraphs are composed of one-line sentences which amount to WP:Proseline. These should be incorporated into the prose. There is a tense problem in the Campaign staff and policy team section (between they “have” and “had”) which is confusing. Captions that are fragments should not have periods. There are a few issues with incorrect capitalization within quotations (quoted text in the middle of a sentence starts with a cap) and a general issue with and logical quotation (inside if part of the quoted text, outside if not) (see WP: Mos#Quotation_marks).

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In general, the article complies with the MOS criteria for GA. The See also section, however, contains links which could easily be integrated into the text. It is probably not necessary at all.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
There is one ^{[citation needed]} tag in the Potential role of superdelegates section that needs to be addressed. And all quotations require direct references.

B. 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):
There are a number of issues with the references. Several of the wikilinks (the ones in red) are broken. A number of reference links are broken: see http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008. Several references are missing necessary information. Each should have at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. An author and date should be given if possible. The PDF references all need page numbers. The date format should be consistent (month day, year or yyyy-mm-dd). And all titles should be in title case.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Extremely comprehensive in its coverage. Great work.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Pushes the edge of WP:SS, but handles tangential topics well without digression and hands off nicely to other main articles where appropriate. This is a very long article and some would fault it for that fact alone. It is borderline, in my view. It is worth considering if there are logical ways to split the article or trim the coverage somewhat.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Fair and neutral treatment of what could be a highly polarizing topic. Good job.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are all appropriately tagged with FUR where needed.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Very well illustrated with appropriate images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The abovementioned issues should be fixed but this is otherwise a very strong candidate. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No motion on the review in the last seven days. Failing for now. Always free to nominate later after issues are addressed. Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]