Talk:2010 United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

First comments

Before I get deeper into the article, there are a few technical things to sort out. I have listed them below and they are easily correctable:
 * This article links to two different disambugation pages. Fix that so it goes to the direct page you want it to.
 * Fixed the disambs. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of your Rasmussen report external links are dead, these need to be either replaced or fixed
 * I believe I've fixed them both. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove usage of:
 * assert
 * steal
 * Done, to both. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see alot about the race but the smallest section is about the results. Probably good to expand it to discuss the implications of the race explicitely.
 * The reason I kept this section somewhat short is that I was trying to be very careful to keep this article focused specifically on the primary and not go too far into other territory like the general election. I believe (and think this article proves it) that this particular primary was significant enough in itself to warrant its own article, and I wanted to keep the article within that scope, rather than making it redundant with general election info. That being said, I'm sure you're right and that we could probably expand this section a bit. Could you maybe give me some more specific guidance as to what you'd like to see here? Or, perhaps it would be better if we could review the whole article and then save this section for last, since you'll then have a very good understanding of the big picture and what additions to this section might be warranted? Let me know either way what you think. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will certainly now go through the article itself, yes. What I mean by 'implications' is answering the question: "Does any expert believe that this race made the Democrats lose the general?" - while this does bring it into conflict with the general election article, I still am itching to include it. Why is the article notable? Why should anyone care if Sestak beat Specter? I think that should be addressed in a results section, even if its just a few sentences. Nevertheless, I will now go through the article to make notations section-by-section. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Once those issues are done, I can go down the checklist much easier. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Section by Section review
(Note: I am typing this as I read though it)

Lead
 * First and foremost, must be cited. I'm looking first at the statement, "was described as the most bitterest". I can see a 'by whom' tag ready to be there.
 * My understanding of WP:LEADCITE (correct me if I'm wrong) is that since all of the information is presented in the article already, the only parts that need to be cited in the lead are parts that are likely to be challenged, in order to avoid redundant inline citations. To that end, I've cited the bit you referred to (reworded a bit too), and the part where I talk about the commercials/anti-Republican momentum. Do you feel other parts need citing in the lead?
 * Omit the Chris Matthews sentence. I don't see how that is really something so important to put in the lead.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead looks better now. Great! Lord Roem (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris Matthews speculation
 * I think this section is fine. Good usage of in-line citation.
 * Thanks! Will address the rest of this later today. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Arlen Specter party switch
 * Need a cite for "Cons. Republicans vowed to defeat..."
 * Added a new source. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conclude the section with some kind of rebuttal point to the Republican quotes so it seems balanced. Something like "Despite this, Specter defended his position by .... "
 * Added some more info. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Sestak
 * Good! Had something at the end about Specter's response to this to it flows better with the article so far.

Candidates Early months
 * I'd probably remove the whole paragraph explaining these other candidates who are not particulary relevant to this discussion. Just make it a list. INCLUDE the others, but don't give them a whole paragraph.
 * I'd much rather have at least one sentence in here about them, Trying to picture it as a reader, I don't think I'd appreciate just seeing these two names on a list with no indication of who they are, even if they didn't play a big role. I tightened it to have only one sentence about each. Would that be acceptable? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see what you did. That's cool. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little annoyed by the placement of this paragraph. hmm. I guess it's ok to put it here. Maybe it would be better if it was closer to the end, because it seems like a 'wrap-up' where you say 'here are the candidates in the end'.
 * Well, the section was here before I started on the article, but I think this is the fairly common structure for election articles of these type. I see what you are saying, but personally, I think it works well here, since it sort of sums up who the main candidates are right before it goes into the "Campaign" section. To move it to the end, it's not very helpful to the reader because they will have already known from the campaign section who the final candidates are. Know what I mean? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked around at other election articles, and you're right. Its fine then. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This paragraph needs to open with a more generalized statement about the campaign. Rather, it goes straight into "Joe Sestak this...Arlen Specter that" if you understand what I mean.
 * I agree. I added a segue sentence. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again in the end of the article, give some rebuttal point to make it balanced.
 * I added a rebuttal, but I kept it short, because I kind of felt that this section was ending with Sestak's rebuttal to Specter, so I didn't want to go too detailed with another Specter rebuttal and give him too much undue balance. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Toomey, Obama get involved
 * Good. No qualms here.

Specter maintains lead
 * Give an in-line cite to "Specter called on him to resign" at the top of this section.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Omit 'only' in "Specter only missed four." Seems like an opinionated "Specter was so good he only missed four".
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Race grows more heated Momentum TV ads
 * Maybe put a quote from a debate/heated moment in the quote box rather than the endoresment one. That demonstrates the content better.
 * I was concerned about doing this because if I chose a Sestak quote, it would balanced in his favor against Specter, and vice versa. Do you maybe have a suggestion for a specific quote? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. True. In that case I'd just omit the quote box altogether. Because it kind of disconnects with the context of the article. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite for "was considered the most important endorsement of the race".
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the bottom of this section, when you discuss the fundraising gaps, explain why that matters. Something to the effect of "This would be difficult in the run-up to the primary becasue expert X predicted that lots of money was needed for commericials"
 * Added a sentence which I believe is properly cited in this source. Couldn't find another source that more specifically states why this is important. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good!

Sestak gains
 * Good! I especially like the caption for the photo here.

Alleged White House job offer
 * Remove the stuff about Issa not investigating. All of that is post-primary and not relevant to this article.
 * I narrowed it all to one sentence. I agree much of that was post-election stuff outside the scope of the article topic, but I feel to not address it at all will leave this section incomplete and leave the reader hanging, so I kept it to the bare minimum. (Will continue the rest of this later today. Thanks!) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the way you did it was fine. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove some of the quotations here and focus more on the implications of the offer. Why would/did it hurt Specter?
 * Removed some quotes, although I kept in some of the ones from Sestak's initial answers to the question, as I thought in that instance, since the mini-scandal was caused directly by his responses, it was better to quote them verbatim than attempt to paraphrase. Other less important quotes were dropped. As for how it hurt or affected Specter, I don't have any sources that discuss that. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements
 * I don't think this is needed. If you want to keep it, only keep the bigger names. For example, you could easily delete the multiple mentions of 'Democratic Committee' replacing it with "6 Democratic committees".
 * Well, I guess I personally feel as long as they are properly cited, there's no reason not to include information like this. But I see what you mean, and I've dropped the section. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must agree its a tough choice. In my mind I'm just thinking that beyond the big endorsements (the larger labor unions, Obama, etc. :P) I don't think its needed. Did the X County Democratic Committee really change the race? Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Results Any questions, feel free to ask! Very good article and certainly a viable candidate for GA. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat the comments I wrote at first: write a sentence or two about the implications of the race. Its probably somewhere in the Washington Post article you cite about this race being widely watched.
 * I have tried to find a WP:RS that discusses whether this race (Sestak's win) cost the Democrats the seat, as you indicated above you were hoping to have added here. So far, I've found nothing. Will keep looking though... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not a requirement for the article per se, but I think it would certainly improve it. Tell me whether or not you find something. If its a wild goose chase, that will be fine, and I'll go through the article one last time before pulling out the checklist. So far, the improvements have been great! Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked around at a lot of sources. There were a few from before the outcome of the primary where people (like Rendell) predicted that Sestak would lose the general election if he won the primary. However, I haven't been able to find any post-election sources that suggested this, or that Sestak cost the Dems the seat. In fact, this fairly recently year-in-review article made no mention of it, nor does this article which places the race in the context of GOP Senate gains. Sorry about this. :/ I can keep looking though, if you like. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did my own quick look for sources a few hours ago and confirmed what you've found. Nothing indicating it directly that wouldn't be a contrived source. In that case, I have no further fixes for the article - I will read through it one more time and then pull out the checklist for a final decision on promotion. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal Checklist

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Impressed on the quality of refs and on the detail of the article. Well done! -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I was rather surprised at how neutral this is considering the topic.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Pictures really make this article cool to read
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Moving to promote. :)
 * Pictures really make this article cool to read
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Moving to promote. :)