Talk:Keith Sebelius/GA1

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

Reviewer: Naypta (talk · contribs) 17:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * All comments in 1a, 2c, and 3a have been met. OurCampaigns is an allowed source and is used in hundreds of election and political pages. - Jon698 talk 11:41 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for addressing some of the parts so quickly! I don't think all of them have been addressed, though - I've struck through the ones that no longer apply, would you mind taking a look at those that remain?As regards the suitability of OurCampaigns as a source, can you point to anywhere where it has been deemed to be suitable? The mere fact that it's used in various articles doesn't mean it's an acceptable source, and the only conversation I can find on it at WP:RS/N is far from a consensus that it is okay to use. The primary source should be used whenever possible. While generally accurate, ourcampaigns is still a user-generated secondary source for election results, and we should cite perhaps what they cite - irrespective of whether or not the data is accurate, it still comes under WP:UGC.All the best! Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 12:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Earl Landgrebe, Jon Huntsman Jr., Barney Frank, and Newt Gingrich are a few GA articles that use OurCampaigns as a source. - Jon698 talk 12:29 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the reviewed versions of those articles, OurCampaigns does not appear as a source. But again, even if it did, this GA review is not about other articles, it's about this article, and I'm as of yet unconvinced that any exception to WP:UGC would apply for OurCampaigns. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 12:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A guideline is not a rule. There is no consensus banning OurCampaigns and yes the review version of Earl Landgrebe does have OurCampaigns as a source as you can clearly see in the Electoral History section. Also the review versions of Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman Jr. DO use OurCampaigns as a source if you just use the find tool and type in "campaigns" and go to the references section. - Jon698 talk 12:51 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Guidelines have exceptions, yes, but I don't see how this is one of them. OurCampaigns to me is not a reliable source, irrespective of anything else, because it is user generated, and so the same reasoning we don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia applies. I can now see that some of those articles did indeed have OurCampaigns-sourced content in the review - sorry, I missed them when I was looking over as it wasn't specifically marked as coming from that source - but again, what is or isn't somewhere else is immaterial to the situation we have here.If you disagree with me on this, I'm happy to request a second opinion, but as I've said earlier, I'm at the moment unwilling to pass 2b with OurCampaigns as a source. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 12:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On 2c:"Update: the part here talking about a special election is still unsourced - the source says he might be appointed, not that he might be elected" Source 40 clearly states that he would not wish to be a "caretaker" of the Senate seat. A caretaker is somebody who only serves as an appointee and doesn't run in the special election. He is stating that he did not want to be a caretaker and that if he was appointed he would run in the special election. - Jon698 talk 13:01 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The clipping that's referenced says he doesn't want to be a caretaker, yes, but it doesn't actually say he's going to run in the special election - his words are "I cross every bridge generally when I get to it", which is actively evasive on the topic. I don't think that's a clear source for that claim. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Also for 1a I have moved the "in the Caribbean" part to the end of the sentence. - Jon698 talk 13:16 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've updated the table above to match. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey I might not be able to edit Wikipedia for a few days so I decided just to avoid a conversation and look for the election results myself through Newspapers.com and found them. So now that that is done can you finish up the review? Thanks in advance. - Jon698 talk 18:16 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for that - looks good! The only thing left I think at this point is the point about the original research re the name of Sebelius' wife, year of marriage, and children. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that point was invisible apart from in the wikitext... It's visible again now - the URL referenced had an equals in, which was messing up the wikitext, and I didn't think to check the preview. Genuinely sorry about that, I was under the impression it was visible previously. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Hopefully everything is in order now :) - Jon698 talk 22:12 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the citation down there, but that's not addressed the issue - that's the citation I was looking at when I wrote that part of the review. The cited page says Sebelius' wife was named Bette, with no mention of a middle name either, and makes no mention of the initials of either of their sons. Clearly there's a Wikipedia article on one of them, so that's sourced there as his name I'm sure, but for the other one and the wife's name, there's no clear path to verifiability on those at the moment. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * LMAO dumb mistake by me. I accidentally moved the wrong references. My last edit added in the references about his wife's full name and his children. - Jon698 talk 22:27 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice job! I'm passing the article Just a note, as well - re takes just the username, without the "User:" prefix - otherwise it won't do pings properly.Well done, the article looks great! Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)