Talk:Robby Mook/Archives/2019

MOS:LEAD
To quote MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The sentence currently at the end of the lead that Mook was criticized after HRC's 2016 loss needs to be expanded in the body of the article to provide information and NPOV for our readers. I would also like to prune the list of references provided, at least some of which do not support the claim in that particular sentence:
 * Politico Nov 9, 2016: Mentions Mook's history with Clinton but does not criticize Mook for 2016 loss.
 * Politico December 14, 2016: This one criticizes Mook, a good representation of general criticism of campaign strategy in the early days when the role of Russian intel in Trump's targeting of Michigan was not understood.
 * Sam Stein, HuffPo November 16, 2016, basically repeats criticisms of previous Politico article but the name "Mook" never appears in the article. How is this an example of criticism of Mook?
 * NYT April 2017 Good reference for the claim, RS criticizes Mook explicitly and in detail (see quote)
 * National Review April 2017, reviews same book as NYT, doesn't add to info about Mook in NYT article
 * Podhoretz NY Post April 2017 Also based on Shattered presents same info as previous two source.
 * Dem strategist Stanley Greenberg reiterates Mook's reliance on data analytics rather than polling.

I propose to add info based on two of these references to the article section on HRC 2016 campaign. Then the lead can reflect what the article says, which will be that Mook was criticized for over-reliance on data analytics, despite feedback from campaign teams in battleground states. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD
To quote MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The sentence currently at the end of the lead that Mook was criticized after HRC's 2016 loss needs to be expanded in the body of the article to provide information and NPOV for our readers. I would also like to prune the list of references provided, at least some of which do not support the claim in that particular sentence:
 * Politico Nov 9, 2016: Mentions Mook's history with Clinton but does not criticize Mook for 2016 loss.
 * Politico December 14, 2016: This one criticizes Mook, a good representation of general criticism of campaign strategy in the early days when the role of Russian intel in Trump's targeting of Michigan was not understood.
 * Sam Stein, HuffPo November 16, 2016, basically repeats criticisms of previous Politico article but the name "Mook" never appears in the article. How is this an example of criticism of Mook?
 * NYT April 2017 Good reference for the claim, RS criticizes Mook explicitly and in detail (see quote)
 * National Review April 2017, reviews same book as NYT, doesn't add to info about Mook in NYT article
 * Podhoretz NY Post April 2017 Also based on Shattered presents same info as previous two source.
 * Dem strategist Stanley Greenberg reiterates Mook's reliance on data analytics rather than polling.

I propose to add info based on two of these references to the article section on HRC 2016 campaign. Then the lead can reflect what the article says, which will be that Mook was criticized for over-reliance on data analytics, despite feedback from campaign teams in battleground states. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)