Talk:Evan Bayh 2008 presidential campaign/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The staff from his All America PAC worked as his campaign team. PAC needs spelling out as well as wikilinking. This article should be aimed at a general readership throughout the world, not just to the US.
 * Employees: Do we really need a table of all of his employees? What encyclopaedic purpose does this serve?
 * The employees are the campaign, of course its necessary. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear that most of them are not particularly notable. The lead two sentences are basically, OK, but we really don't need the rest. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole article is written in political jargon-ridden manner that is not necessarily accessible to those not familiar with US political reporting. It could be improved considerably by being rewritten in clear, plain English.
 * Remember that this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please be more specific. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You confuse Simple English with Plain English. Speciifc examples below:
 * Two weeks prior to his withdrawal, Bayh filed with the Federal Elections Commission as an exploratory committee, under the header Friends of Evan Bayh. "He filed .... as an exploratory committee". That is not good English. How can an individual file as a committee, and what is an exploratory committee?
 * As word increased of Bayh's intentions, political scientists opined on the detractions of a run. Citing the fact that his eight years as governor may be nullified by its distance in time and that his visibility in the Senate was low, critics pondered whether moderate voters may be more inclined to line with possible candidate Mark Warner of Virginia. "Opined on the detractions."? "his eight years as governor may be nullified by its distance in time"? "whether moderate voters may be more inclined to line with possible candidate Mark Warner of Virginia" maybe "line up with or even plainer "vote for"?
 * Throughout the month, he visited Iowa, delivering a speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people, reflecting similar rhetoric from the 2004 Kerry campaign, including energy independence, fair trade, the federal deficit and the handling of the war in Iraq. "Reflecting similar rhetoric"?
 * At the event he accused President Bush of dividing the nation and stated that he believed Democrats could win in red states if they stood up for "American values."  Need to explain the significance of "red states" and "blue states".
 * A large portion of his time in the first month was spent positioning himself. "positioning himself"?
 * Late in January, Bayh gained the position as speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in North Carolina for the upcoming April. The gain came as a loss for North Carolinian John Edwards, who also was considered a potential candidate for the Democratic nomination. "gained" "gain" Not really the right word here. "was invited to speak at" might be better? Need to explain the significance of this dinner - I see further down that there is another such dinner in Michigan.
 * On a larger scale, Bayh commented on the rebuilding of the area, conveying that it "is a test of America."  "On a larger scale"?
 * He returned to Iowa in mid-August, with a packed schedule that included fundraisers and a news conference for the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" organization. During the event, Bayh tried to appeal to populist voters stating that "Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze." What is the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" organization?
 * Later in the month, he made a stop in Nevada to discuss senior issues with Nevada's gubernatorial candidate Dina Titus. "senior issues"?
 * The Democratic takeover of Congress during the 2006 Mid-term elections was a victory for Bayh, who had helped three Iowan congressional candidates win their races during campaigning, and whose efforts culminated in a Democratic majority in the state's legislature. Confused sentence starts with Congressional elections, ends with state legislature elections.
 * In regards to the election, he stated that "we (the Democrats) won by turning the red states of the heartland blue." "In regards to"?
 * On December 3, 2006, Bayh announced that he would form an exploratory committee in order for him to travel and raise funds more effectively for a presidential run. How does this committe help achieve this?
 * Upon this revelation, the candidate appeared on This Week, articulating that Americans "need someone who can deal with the dysfunction here in this city (Washington D.C.) so that our government begins to empower our people to fulfill their potential...if I can be that individual, so be it."  "Upon this revelation"?
 * The followed weekend, Bayh visited New Hampshire to discuss energy independence, global warming and the war in Iraq, however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted to Senator Barack Obama, and his two sold out appearances in the state. Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh.  "The followed weekend"? "however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted "? "Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh."?
 * Two weeks following his announcement, Bayh withdrew from the race, citing that "the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue." How about just using the word "after" rather than "following"?
 * Nine months following his withdrawal, Bayh endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, stating that he believed she would "run a campaign that is both tough and smart when it comes to protecting our nation's security." Again "after" is better and clearer.
 * Consider studying User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. This and the other essays on this user page give good sound advice on writing articles.
 * I laugh at, and am offended by your suggestions. If people want to learn more, they can click on the links, this article is not supposed to explain every single term used, for the small minority that probably should be using Simple English Wikipedia. You have a lot of nerve holding up this nomination for your personal style preferences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References #1. 2, 3, 4 are all hosted at George Washington University, but are part of someone's personal site in their webspace, not WP:RS
 * Please explain further. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is (are) Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action? What makes them a WP:RS? Is this website cited in major newspapers or journals?
 * It is used by George Washington University. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Other references appear reliable.
 * Reference # 60 is a dead link, not stored at the Internet archive ✅
 * This has been fixed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Throughout the month, he visited Iowa, delivering a speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people, is this significant information? 60 people? hardly a major event.  WP:SUMMARY style could be usefully employed I think. In fact I wonder whether this article is really necessary.  It is hardly very engaging, I am afraid.
 * That's simply your opinion. I strongly disagree. Any visit to Iowa by a presidential candidate is notable, it shows that he is testing the waters. Remember that the first caucus occurs in Iowa. Please be more specific when you make claims. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the minutiae of US politics. Neither do many Wikipedia readers. The significance of speaking to 60 people needs to be explained. You say, "Remember that the first caucus occurs in Iowa." This means little to me and assuming that your reader knows this is significant is not a good idea.
 * Did you even read the article? It is stated in the first paragraph. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be considered. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, we have reached an impasse here. My interest is in measuring this artcile against the Good Article criteria. I shall ask for a second opinion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with your assessment. Many of the political terms need to be better defined within the article. Otherwise it is generally well-wrote and meets all the other criteria. Terms like "blue state and red state" could be replaced with "states where electorates favor democrats or republicans". I also concur that the "Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action website" appears blog like and therefore unreliable unless Appleman can be established as a published author or notable commentator or professor in the fields of politics. Everything else appears in order. :) Keep up the good work, and remember our goal is improve content. The criticisms raised during review processes like this should be taken as helpful comments, not attacks on the article. Check out WP:Jargon and WP:RS. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My major issue with this article isn't how it places things in context (I have the requisite familiarity with the American political scene, so I'm probably not a good judge of that), but rather the prose. I think Jezhotwells was actually being, if anything, lenient on the prose here; I suspect that William has confused complex writing with good writing.  Given his unwillingness to address concerns, I'd suggest failing this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will listen to Charles Edward's suggestions. However, I feel that the usual Steve Smith style is extremely lacking and leaves an article more dry and less engaging. For example, I believe Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008 was a better article in many respects before Steve Smith's review of it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the Appleman source, please look at this. I believe it demonstrates its reliability. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My major issue with this article isn't how it places things in context (I have the requisite familiarity with the American political scene, so I'm probably not a good judge of that), but rather the prose. I think Jezhotwells was actually being, if anything, lenient on the prose here; I suspect that William has confused complex writing with good writing.  Given his unwillingness to address concerns, I'd suggest failing this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will listen to Charles Edward's suggestions. However, I feel that the usual Steve Smith style is extremely lacking and leaves an article more dry and less engaging. For example, I believe Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008 was a better article in many respects before Steve Smith's review of it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the Appleman source, please look at this. I believe it demonstrates its reliability. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That just says that he graduated from GWU, and that they host his blog, not that they condone or support it. Can you provide evidence that this is cited by reliable sources as a reliable source? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I don't really understand what terms you all believe need to be clarified. I tried to clarify the red state example. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I made myself clear about this. Th ered states bit has been improved. As you do not appear willing to improve the rest of this article, I shall not be listing it at this time. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to WP:GAR for a community re-assessment. If improvements are made to the article please re-nominate it at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked what terms needed to be clarified, and you just decided to close the nomination. What a jerk. This was the worst review ever. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)