Talk:John McCain 2000 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review

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

Check 1

I am checking that the article meets a few basic things listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles before I do an in depth review:

• The article has sources.
• The article is not clearly POV
• The article has no cleanup banners .
• The article doesn't seem to be the subject of any major ongoing edit wars (there was a dispute a couple of months ago but that seems to be completely resolved)
• The article doesn't specifically concern a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint

Anonymous101 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Check Two

I will put {{done}} or {{not done}} below the places where the cirteria is met and not met respectively.

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

    Done - I have checked through the article and the spelling and grammar is great. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

   Lead sections

    Done I belive that the article complies with WP:LEAD Anonymous101 (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   Layout

    Done Layout complies with policy. Anonymous101 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   Jargon

    Done I did not see any unexplained jargon in my check. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   Words to avoid

    Not done Very few of the words to avoid are used, and, when they are used, most are used apprpriately. However "Attributions of McCain's supposed instability to his POW days caused Admiral James Stockdale," in my opinion violates words to avoid as I believe it "casts doubt upon an assertion," in a way discouraged by the words to avoid page.

   "The day after McCain announced, Bush made a show of visiting Phoenix and displaying that he, not McCain, had the endorsement of Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull and several other prominent local political figures.[13] McCain did however have the support of the rest of the Republication Arizona congressional delegation" - I bleive this use "can imply that one alternative is less favored than another." The same apples for the start of the second paragraph of the "On to Super Tuesday" section

   I think the sentence "Only four of McCain's fellow senators endorsed his candidacy," misuses the word only as "these words, when used in conjunction with a measurable trait such as time or distance, suggest that the trait being described is unusual or remarkable. Even in cases where the value judgement being made represents a widely held view, it is still inappropriate to lead a reader to agree with that view. In most cases, removing the word only or just will address the problem." The same applies to "story was sent to some 50,000 voters." Anonymous101 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   List incorporation

    Done I believe that the lists included are formatted and positioned appropriately per Wikipedia:Embedded list. Anonymous101 (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

    Done Everything is fully cited to a source and there is a references sections. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   (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)

    Done As stated above everything is cited to a source, and all the sources for major facts, quotes, statements etc. are reliable per WP:RS.Anonymous101 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   (c) it contains no original research

    Done Everything is fully cited to the sources so not OR. Anonymous101 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

    Done Anonymous101 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

    Done Anonymous101 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

   Done Anonymous101 (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

    Done The article passes this based on what I saw in the page history. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

    Done The only fair use image in the article has a valid rational. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

    Not done You may have done this already but you may want to search for some free images of the campaign. I find it almost impossible to believe that there are no free images of the campaign. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) - One image that you could include somewhere is Image:2000 Republican Primary Results.svg.  Done I can't find a single other free image relate to the campaign on all the free image finders tools/websites I know, so I don't expert you to find any. I've added the one free image and I'll call this done as there seem to be no images. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous101, thanks very much for the review. I know reviewing isn't easy and that it's one of the underappreciated tasks on WP.

Regarding images, thanks for adding the states-won map, that really shows how dominate Bush was in the end. Yes, it's frustrating we don't have other images. For the 2008 campaigns, lots of editors took pictures of campaign events they attended, and thus our campaign articles are sprinkled with those photos, but 2000 predates both the Wikipedia era and digital camera era. Hopefully someday someone will scan in a film photo they took back then and add it.

Regarding WP:AVOID, I have tried to fix up all five instances you listed; make sure my changes reflect and correct your objections. And thanks again! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Check Three

• All the above issues have been resolved. I am promoting this to GA status. Great Article! Anonymous101 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much!! Wasted Time R (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)