Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/GA2


 * Originally located at Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism).

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] A few issues here need to be addressed per the Manual of Style. The usage of word memorialize in the intro is unacceptable. Irony is not a desired quality in encyclopedic writing. Remember we're trying to state the obvious facts for the uneducated reader. Blockquotes are exclusively to be used for quotes of four lines or more in length, so all the currently block formatted quotations need to be undone. The Appearances in media section is dangerously close to a trivia section listing all the appearances. For a neologism however, making clear the prevalence of the term is important, so I would not advocate deleting the section outright. A reordering of the section and the addition of a proper transition into the section is necessary however. If you like, I can give you a jumpstart to show you what kind of work needs doing. Single sentence paragraphs, such as those in the aforementioned section, should never be present. These should be integrated into fuller paragraphs. Structurally, the Appearances in media section should be placed before Political impact. This is for chronological reasons, as not only did most the referenced media appearances occur before the political ones, it only makes sense that the media attention would precede the political impact in real time events. The chronology of the neologism goes roughly: creation-->activism-->media coverage-->impact.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] The type of sourcing, despite what the previous reviewer suggested, is exemplary. There is not an excess of primary sources, and the secondary sources used are strong. The article also does a fairly good job of providing inline citations. However, the block quotes are not cited properly. Just like other quotations, an inline ref must occur exactly at the end of the quote. Thus, you need to include any refs for quotes within the blockquote formatting parameters.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] Remember to be broad, but concise. "Savage then proceeded to answer a letter..." is not exactly relevant.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] For the most part the article does an acceptable job of adhering to a neutral point of view. However, the Background needs either to be rewritten in its treatment of Santorum's comments, or the analysis needs to be attributed literally to a source (i.e. according to news sources such as the... etc.)
 * 5. Article stability? [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
 * 6. Images?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Lack of images is not a pass/fail criteria. But remember that if images are ever added there must be proper licenses including fair-use rationales where appropriate. Otherwise, the article may be subject to delisting.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note below showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Van Tucky  Talk 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Commentary
Just for ease of reading, please make any notes on improvements below. Thanks a million, Van Tucky  Talk 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking time to review this article. I've been meaning to work on these things, but I'm absolutely slammed this week with work, projects, etc. Is there anyone else that can take a stab at it? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the expiry of the hold period of a week and no completed improvements, I am unfortunately failing this article. If you feel this was in error, you may seek a reassessment of the decision. I encourage editors to renominated the article once these improvements have been completed. Thank you for your work so far, Van Tucky  Talk 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that decision. Hopefully the article will be (eventually) improved and renominated. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)