Wikipedia:Peer review/1996 United States campaign finance controversy/archive1

1996 United States campaign finance controversy edit

I submitted this article I wrote only five days ago to the FAC page and originally received 3 objections for various reasons, but managed to correct them and gain the support of two of the readers only to have the article yanked from the FAC page and sent to the archive for some unexplained reason. I feel I wrote and thoroughly researched a well-documented article with absolutely NPOV. What do you think? I appreciate any comment you can give. Thanks! --Jayzel68 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like it. Relevant images, structured well. I'd vote for it at FA. Don't small-font your notes, though. Proto||type 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've changed the font size. Thanks for your comment! --Jayzel68 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made some changes to get you started; here are some more comments:

Typically on wikpedia quotations are not italicized
The WP:LEAD needs to be expanded - the Woodward story was only a small early part of this event; the lead should summarize how the story influenced the event, if it did (ie, was it the first public evidence of the investigation?), or present a chronology of the events - "an investigation was started in 19XX (why? was there a tip, an informant?) and led to public scrutiny, criminal charges, denials, apologies, etc."
The lead should also probably note whatever role the controversy had on the 2000 US Presidential campaign,
and should note the prominent figures (Clinton, Gore? Riady? Trie?)
what is a "blast-faxing" business?
I added an image that I think helps with your background paragraph

Hope this helps, Kaisershatner 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe I have addressed all your issues. However, I don't feel it is important to get into to possible effects on the 2000 campaign. Also, I believe an issue such as that would involve too much opinion and would potentially cause a problem re: POV. Thanks for your comments! --Jayzel68 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator, reverted his decision and reposted my article to the FAC page. If you like it, please vote "support". Thanks again everyone! --Jayzel68 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]