Talk:Hubert Humphrey 1968 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well written article that clearly sets forth what happened in this campaign. I have done some copy edits, but feel free to revert any errors. I have only a few comments:

Lyndon Johnson campaign

"which caused the president to not seek re-election." - the source puts this forth as a hypothesis, not a fact. Done
"Johnson explained that it was in the best interest of the nation to not run a campaign with the ongoing Vietnam crisis," - does he mean for him to "not run a campaign", or that no one should? Done
" He immediately made an impact on the polls, rocketing to number one among Democrats in the beginning of May with 38%, ahead of both McCarthy and Kennedy." - Is this because he positioned himself as a conservative? (The way this is worded, it leaves out the impact of other Democrats calling him conservative.)

Back then, being considered a "conservative" was a positive, even though by today's standards everyone was a liberal. Individuals in the party opposed the campaign, not because of a conservative label, but because of his "establishment" and Vietnam War stance. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign developments

"and set the stage for a battle in Chicago" - do you made it clear previously that this is where the Democratic convention will be held? Done

Democratic national convention

There are some questionable wikilinks, like death threat, running mate Done

Endorsements

This section is rather weak, and I wonder if it is worth having.

Endorsement sections are customary in these articles though lately I have also questioned their necessity. I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections to discuss the issue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General

There should be no spaces between the punctuation and the reference citation. I corrected some, but these should be remedied throughout. Done
There is inconsistent wikilinking. Many cities are wikilinked for no apparent reason. Some states and cities are but not others. (e.g. Louisiana isn't) In general, fewer wikilinks is better, only "high values" wikilinks should be used, ones that make a specific point regarding the article's subject. Done

(I may add more comments if I find anything else.)

Xtzou (Talk) 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review. I will make the changes in the next few hours. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

"Johnson explained that it was not in the best interest of the nation to mix partisan politics with the presidency with the ongoing Vietnam crisis" - how about mix the partisan politics of a presidential election with the ongoing Vietnam crisis? Done

Xtzou (Talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One problem: you have two Fair use logos, but they don't each have a proper fair use rationale. You need to show why the logos are necessary to the understand of this article.

Xtzou (Talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct

B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the subject
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]