Wikipedia:Peer review/Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet/archive1

Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need a little help with the vote tallies, they look awkward.

Thanks, Spinach Monster (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Spinach Monster (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment: First of all, the references should all be cited properly and in a consistent manner. I'd recommend the cite web and cite news formats, which can be found here. Currently, references 6-10 look good--all other references should appear this way as well. -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The article depends on information that seems to be changing daily. It will be hard to get it into anything like finished form until all the cabinet seats are filled. Even so, here are a few suggestions for improvement.

The lead will need to be re-written to summarize the main points of the article. That won't be possible until the main sections are relatively complete.
I'd suggest moving the confirmation votes table to the bottom of the article. It's awkward at the top. When you add the votes for all of the candidates, the box will not be wide enough. You will probably have to divide it, which will make it even longer. You could make the columns narrower by using just the last name of the cabinet member or by stacking the first name on top of the last name. Ditto for the voters. Another way to compress might be to use H. Clinton and M. Baucus instead of full names. You might also abbreviate the state names.
The "support", "oppose", "confirmation" arrangement for Geithner seems more logical than the "confirmation", "support", "opposition" arrangement for Clinton since the for-against arguments chronologically precede the confirmation hearings.
To keep the article from getting too long and to avoid including unnecessary detail, you might choose a couple of representative "for" statements and a couple of representative "against" arguments rather than including a large number as you do with Geithner.
When you quote a politician speaking pro or con about a political nomination, it's helpful to include the speaker's political affiliation as you do with Jim Bunning.
Many of the citations need to be fixed, as mentioned in the review above this one.
The image Baucus Finance lacks a verifiable source, an author or agency author name, and a description. Ditto for Cornyn Judiciary.
All of the verb tenses will have to be checked because a lot of the story is essentially breaking news. For example, the sentence, "Republican Senator Lindsay Graham supports Geithner's nomination," doesn't make sense since Geithner has been confirmed.

This is not a complete review, which would be premature at this stage. However, I hope these brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]