Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania/GA1

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead
 * Might be worth adding a brief mention of why Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Toomey's winning margin made this election the second-closest race of the 2010 Senate election cycle, behind only the elections in Illinois and Colorado." — Not mentioned in the body of the article.

Candidates
 * Were there any others, even if not their candidacies weren't realistic?

Campaign
 * "2010 primary elections" — Anything to link to?
 * "Before the switch, the Democratic establishment had encouraged Sestak to run in the Democratic primary" — We know Specter is the Republican senator at this point, but who is Sestak? This would be a good place to introduce him.
 * "after Specter switched parties he was largely embraced by such major Democratic figures" — Why?
 * Any word on why major Democratic figures embraced him after the switch? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , this one's a bit complicated. I tried searching where it explicitly says why they embraced him but there's not much. It seems they were the ones who encouraged him into switching so I specified that in the article, I think it's intuitive that they would support him afterwards due to sunk cost. I could elaborate a bit more, they had promised he would retain seniority in the senate, promised to help him raise campaign funds, etc but I think it becomes somewhat off topic at that point. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something from this article or this one could add some color? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's mostly the same thing, that they encouraged him to switch and aided him in his campaign, and that he support their stimulus package and healthcare reforms, etc etc. The article already contains the line "On April 28, 2009, Specter switched to the Democratic Party after having served in the Senate as a Republican for 28 years, encouraged by Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, after he had voted in favor of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan and was faced with opposition from Pennsylvania Republicans" which indicates the point at which they started supporting him. The POLITICO article contains some additional details like Specter being a close friend of Rendell beforehand and that Obama offered to appear on his ads. I don't think I should detail it more as it would deviate from the topic. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Specter led Sestak by more than 20 percentage points" — In public polls, presumably.
 * "attacking his House attendance record" — So he was a congressman?
 * "a position in the Obama administration" — Any idea what position?
 * Any word on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strike that, just saw your response below. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "no formal investigation was ever held" — Do you "hold" an investigation? "Opened" might be a better word.

Results
 * "The Democratic primary occurred on May 18, 2010. Although Specter had won endorsement from the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, at 10:14 PM EDT that evening, the Associated Press projected the race as won by Sestak." — This feels out of place. It's probably better incorporated into the above paragraphs.

Background
 * "In a December 2008 interview" — Run-on sentence.
 * "dozens of Pennsylvanians urged to challenge Specter" — urged Toomey?

Specter switches parties
 * "Senator Jim DeMint" — What state?

Toomey jumps ahead
 * town hall — Anything to link to?

Final primary months
 * "the health-care plan before Congress" — Anything to link to?
 * "$2.3 million to his total $4.1 million war chest" — For this and the numbers in this sentence, is it $4.1 million after adding in the $2.3 million? Or $4.1 million plus $2.3 million.
 * "Toomey the best-funded Senate challenger in the country during the 2010 elections" — To that point? Or as of the elections?

Results
 * Again, this seems like it would be better suited above "Polling"

Early weeks
 * "That all changed at 10:30 p.m. (Tuesday)" — Was that when results were announced?
 * "the ToomeyForSenate account amassing 4,907 followers and the Sestak2010 account 3,796 followers. Both also had accounts on Facebook, where Toomey had 10,361 friends and Sestak had 3,146" — As of when? First 24 hours? That's not a lot of people for statewide candidates.

Ideological opposites
 * "the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $1.4 million in support of Specter during the primary, which left them only $200,000 for the general election race" — Why only $200,000? Couldn't they have raised more? Or did they allot $1.6 million to Pennsylvania ahead of time?
 * Any word on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Missed this one, clarified. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "hoped to get an early in building name recognition for himself" — Missing a word.
 * "Sestak not only ... Sestak criticized ... Sestak also criticized ..." — Three sentences in a row that begin similarly.
 * "Republican Pat Toomey defeated his Democratic opponent Joe Sestak on election day. The Associated Press called the race for Toomey shortly after midnight." — What was the margin? Any info on victory/concession speeches?
 * Any word on the victory speech? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Debates
 * Fine to list them in a separate section, but shouldn't they be mentioned in the text also?

Predictions
 * "During a special segment" — What makes this segment so worthy of mention? There must have been hundreds of predictions in the media.

Results
 * "Shortly before midnight on election day the Associated Press called the race for Toomey. Sestak conceded shortly after midnight." — Ditto re incorporating this above.
 * , I have tried to address all the issues that were pointed out, let me know if there are any further. Regarding one point, about the job offer, I couldn't find anything more on it. Courtesy ping, I took over addressing the review after a request at WT:GAN. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks again for taking this on. It looks good. I've highlighted three comments above that might have been overlooked, or you might just have found nothing on. Let me know either way, and then the article should be ready to promote. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the three points above, tell me how it looks now. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , looks good. I've added one comment above, with some possible suggestions for sources that could be added. But the article is in good shape as it is, and I'm passing it now. Again, thanks for coming to the rescue of this nomination and taking it to the finish line. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)