Talk:Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2nd GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|


|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:There some minor prose issues, the article could be served by a good copy-edit.|There some minor prose issues, the article could be served by a good copy-edit.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:The references are the strong point in this article.|The references are the strong point in this article.|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:The article is GA quality congrats. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)|The article is GA quality congrats. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)|}}


Lead[edit]

  • I'm confused by this sentence:
 Done "The election results saw a decrease in over four thousand votes from the previous presidential election."
What this a decrease for him personally or for the Socialist party? This should be spelled out. I think it's the socialist party since you mention earlier in the lead that this was his first run at the presidency but it would still be good to clarify, especially since he represented a few parties. It also is awkwardly worded, I wanted to fix it but since I didn't know who the sentence was referring to I decided to wait until that question was answered.
Is it better now? --TIAYN (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done See WP:LEAD, the lead should cover all the subjects in the article and not have information not found in the body of the text. The fact that this was Moore's first presidential campaign and that Alexander was an environmental activist are not discussed in the article. There is no mention in the lead about his media campaign. It appears to me that the lead could be expanded and that information in the lead should matriculate into the main article as well.
Is it better now? --TIAYN (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign developments[edit]

  • Not done Is there a way to list his opponents in the Socialist Party USA convention? The Peace and Freedom Party candidates are listed but not the Socialist party candidates. Since he won the candidacy from the Socialist party I think it would be good to have as much if not more information about this convention vs. the party he didn't win does that make sense?
Nope, i'm not able to find a name of any of the other 11-candidates. It should be noted that none of the other candidates are notable enough on their own. But no, not close. --TIAYN (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I didn't realize there were 11 of them. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done What federal appeal is the article referring to? I'm assuming there was a lawsuit regarding the status of these parties in LA that was lost and then the parties appealed is that right? Can the history of this appeal be further specified for the readers? Nothing too elaborate just a sentence or two about it would be great.
  • Not done Why did he pick Alexander as his running mate? Is there any information about this? I think that would be a nice sentence to add to this section.
Was voted VP-candidate at the national convention, wasn't picked by P-candidate as its usually done with the D and R party. --TIAYN (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the sentence a little bit to reflect that he was selected by the party, let me know if this jives with what you're saying here. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a fragment:
 Done "After the federal appeal announced that the Socialist Party USA and the Libertarian Party did not complete the paperwork in time to be featured on the ballot in the state of Louisiana."
 DoneWhat happened after the federal appeal was announced? If you are going to give a little more detail on the federal appeal then drop the "After" and it should be ok.
Think i've fixed it. --TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done What does Los Angeles law have to do with anything? Isn't this the Federal Circuit court of appeals? And aren't we talking about Louisiana? Am I miss reading something there?
My fault, supposed to be Louisiana law. Fixed now. --TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Position and beliefs[edit]

  •  Done I made a lot of little edits to this section. Primarily changing the prose from present to past tense and rewording some sentences. Since the article is about the 2008 campaign I felt it was best to word his postion and beliefs in the past tense even though I'm sure those are his beliefs now as well. If you disagree with my fixes you can revert but please also discuss your thoughts here so I can understand where you're coming from.
Nice editing! :P --TIAYN (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Watching linking, usually linking a word once is fine and it is important to link the word the first time it appears in the body of the article. I fixed a couple errant links but you should probably check it against WP:LINK.

Media campaign[edit]

  •  Done Was this the extent of his media exposure? If so that's fine but if there is more then it would be good to add it here.
That's the extent, this is pretty much for a candidate from the SPUSA seeing there previous campaign have garnered close to no interest by the American media. --TIAYN (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Results[edit]

  •  Done Same question in the last sentence of this section, from the context I assume it is referring to the Socialist party rather than the candidate. Please clarify.

References[edit]

  •  Done The references are solid, well-formatted and credible.
  •  Done Check the link in ref 23, it doesn't appear to go to the article listed. Also there's not accessdate on ref 13.

Overarching comments[edit]

  • Overall the article is solid. I feel as though there are some issue with comprehensiveness. I think more could be added and I spelled that out above. I made some fixes that I'd love for you to review and discuss if you disagree with them. Most of the rest of the issues are MOS compliance. The lead should be expanded per my suggestions and also info in the lead should be brought into the main body of the article. I don't feel it meets GA criteria now but I'll happily hold it for a week pending work. Give me a poke on my talk page when you're ready for another review. Please leave questions or comments here so we can keep the discussion on one page. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 Working I'll start my work on the article later today or tomorrow (most likely tomorrow) --TIAYN (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done --TIAYN (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Second review[edit]

  •  Done It looks like work has been done on the article. But I caught a couple things that confused me. First in the lead it says that Moore is the first African American to run for a major party ticket. Two things wrong with this statement: It doesn't appear as though Moore is African American, at least not from the image in the article, and also I would dispute that the Socialist Party USA qualifies as a "major party".
Screw up, used the lead for the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 as help when writing this lead. --TIAYN (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done The lead still does not discuss the media campaign outlined in the article.
  •  Done Also the lead indicates that the Moore campaign selected Alexander has the VP but your comments above state that the party selected Alexander. Please fix this discrepency.
  •  Done I like the explanation of the court battles in Louisiana, but this also isn't mentioned in the lead, which it should be.
  •  Done I think the article is coming along but there are still a few issues, mainly with the under-developed lead, that prevent me from passing to GA at this point. I'll hold it though since there is an active editor willing to work on the article. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright looks good, I'll pass it to GA congrats. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)