Talk:Tom Vilsack 2008 presidential campaign/GA1

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

An enjoyable article about a campaign that most of us had forgot even happened - good work. I'm placing it on hold for now; my more detailed review is below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're making good progress. My responses are below; the ones that require your attention (i.e. that don't just say something like "looks good") are bolded. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can pass this now. Well done, and thanks for an enjoyably collaborative process throughout this review. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it well-written?
The prose could use quite a lot of work, as it is currently far too wordy and often awkward. As well, the article uses far too many direct quotes. Below are some examples and suggestions of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
 * The lead section does not summarize the article. The first paragraph operates as a summary of some parts of the article, ✅ but also introduces material not covered elsewhere (such as Vilsack's alleged use of the internet).   The second paragraph is entirely material not covered by the rest of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most other campaign articles have a second paragraph like this. Would it be proper to add sources to the lead or should I just delete the paragraph? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, per WP:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Given that the good article criteria make specific reference to compliance with WP:LEAD, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to be a stickler on this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack decided to begin a campaign..." I'd advise shortening to "...began a campaign..." or rewording completely ("...announced his candidacy..." or similar). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...in 2008." This is sort of an unclear modifyer: did he decide in 2008, or was he running for the 2008 nomination? I know the answer, but it's not clear from the way it's worded now.  As well, I'm not sure much is gained from bolding 2008. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...announce his intentions for a presidential run." Wordy. How about "...announce his candidacy" or "...launch his campaign"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Looks good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack's campaign made a significant use of the internet during the short run, which ended on February 23, 2007..." Wordy, and not thematically cohesive. How about "Vilsack made extensive use of the internet in his campaign.  He dropped out of the race February 23, 2007..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Removed, which is good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...due to a lack of necessary funds." Far too wordy. How about "...due to financial problems" or "...due to funding shortfalls" or similar? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He promptly endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidency after his exit." Wordy. "He endorsed Hillary shortly after his exit." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "If he were elected..." Should be "If he had been elected..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...and the first to be born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." No need to repeat the state. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He would also be..." Should be "He would also have been..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...the second Roman Catholic president following John F. Kennedy..." The way this currently reads is that Vilsack would have been the second Roman Catholic president to follow JFK, which isn't true at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack ran one of the earliest presidential campaigns in the election cycle." What does this mean? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been removed; good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "At the close of his eight years as Governor of Iowa..." Unclear: does this mean "Near the end of" or "After" his time as Governor? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...Vilsack embarked on a campaigning tour for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates as the head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council." Wordy. How about "...Vilsack, as head of the Democratic Leadership Council, campaigned for Democratic gubernatorial candidates across the country"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "While on the trail he mulled a presidential run and gauged possible support." How about "While on the campaign trail he gauged support for a possible presidential run."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Following the 2006 mid-term elections Vilsack was inspired by the results..." How about "Vilsack was inspired by the results of the 2006 mid-term elections..."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * "...proclaiming..." "...and proclaimed..." would be preferable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "that "Americans sent a clear message" that "they want leaders who share their values, understand their needs and respect their intelligence" and that's what he would "intend to do as president"." Several problems here: first, this is a list, so you need commas.  Second, you should avoid contractions.  Third, to make the parallelism work you need another "that": "that that is what he".  Fourth, it's worded very awkwardly: how about changing it to "and that that is what he "intend[ed] to do as president". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "On November 9, Vilsack filed with the FEC and announced his campaign team's intentions to "put together the building blocks needed to run a successful national presidential campaign" before his eventual formal announcement on November 30." Extremely wordy, and I don't think the direct quote adds anything at all. I'd shorten to "On November 9, Vilsack filed with the FEC.  He formally announced his candidacy November 30.", though there's obviously flexibility there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * I still find this a little wordy, and would encourage you to take another look at it. I won't hold up the GA over it, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer to use the quote just to show what the candidate was saying at this point, especially in regard to his belief that his campaign could be successful nationally. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you want to keep the quote, would you consider hiving the formal announcement off to a separate sentence as I recommended? Again, it's not a deal-breaker, but seems far preferable to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack officially entered the race on November 30, 2006..." We covered that in the previous sentence; no need to repeat it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...at the planned venue of Mount Pleasant, Iowa..." "At the planned venue"? What does that mean?  Why not "...in Mount Pleasant, Iowa"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...stating that his campaign would center on the issues of energy independence, national security, and the nation's economy." How about "He announced his campaign themes as energy independence, national security, and the economy."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Your way is good too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He declared that his campaign would have "the courage to create change" in the "endless partisan debates" in Washington and decried the Bush Administration as a white house "whose first impulse is to divide and to conquer" fueling partisanship." Again, too many direct quotes that don't add anything, and awkwardly wording. Also, "White House" should be capitalized, if it's retained.  I'd reword to something like "He promised to reduce partisanship, and decried the Bush administration as one whose "first impulse is to divide and conquer"." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * I like what you've done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The candidate also acknowledged..." How about "He"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * "Vilsack" works too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...acknowledged himself as "the underdog and long shot" in light of the perceived shortcomings of his campaign: most notably that he remained largely unknown outside Iowa, which made it difficult for him to raise funds." Wordy and awkward.  How about "...acknowledged that he was a long-shot, especially given his low profile outside Iowa, which hampered fundraising." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Following his entrance, Vilsack began December on a five-state campaigning tour beginning in his hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." Wordy.  "In December, Vilsack embarked on a five-state campaign tour beginning in his hometown of Pittsburgh." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what it says in the source, maybe I should eliminate the "five-state." --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to the "five-state" bit (at least not at this point); I'm complaining about the surplus verbiage. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better. I'm still not sure that the "Pennsylvania" needs to be there, but I'll leave that up to you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "While in Pittsburgh..." "In Pittsburgh..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Er, this doesn't appear to be done at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ also I changed it to "in the city" to avoid redundancy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm - this doesn't read very well. If you don't want to see Pittsburgh again, how about just "While there", or even "There"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack also discussed his plan for ending the war in Iraq by giving more control to the Iraqis asserting..." "He also discussed his policy on the war in Iraq, advocating devolving control to the Iraqi government: "It's their country..."" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * You still need that comma. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He returned to Iowa for a fundraiser later in the week." Wasn't this supposed to be a five state tour? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Done what? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I got confused here and responded to this comment a little bit above. I removed the information about the five-state tour since the source mentioned only Pennsylvania and Iowa. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "In mid-December 2006 Vilsack received media attention after completing interviews with two major magazine publications." "In mid-December, Vilsack was interviewed by two major magazines." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Better, but I still object very strongly to the comically redundant "magazine publications". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ oops.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "First, he was interviewed by U.S. News and World Report. During the interview he explained..." "In the U.S. News and World Report, he explained..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * You just made it longer. What's your objection to my wording or something like it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ No objection, I just got a little mixed up. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He detailed his plan to use his campaign to take "people to a different place that they need to get to" particularly on the issue of energy security, which he felt addressed the issues of global warming and national security." How about "He also linked the issue of energy security to global warming and national security."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Better, but you went back to that "The candidate" wording again, which is unwieldy and unhelpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this situation I felt it would be redundant to use he or Vilsack, so I used candidate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's redundant at all. Do you mean repetitive?  I'd strongly urge you to reconsider; the use of "The candidate" when you mean "Vilsack" or "He" is, in my opinion, absolutely cringeworthy.  Good writing is not afraid of short, simple words.  Same goes for the other times you use this.  I'll leave the final decision up to you, but I really think you're making a mistake here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He discussed his plan for success in the Iraq Theater of the War on Terrorism aiming to concentrate American forces away from the southern and central regions of the nation to the north." Maybe tack that one to the previous sentence as "...and advocated moving American troops from southern and central Iraq to the north." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Your way works too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He stated that political reconciliation must be refocused to the "building [of] local governance" rather than spending "all the time on the national government."" Is he still talking about Iraq?  This sentence needs some context.  Also, why would you insert an implied "of" into the quote when you could just say "refocused on "building local governance""? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Looks generally good, but you're still using the wrong preposition ("to" instead of "on"). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He affirmed his strategy to win the Iowa caucus by "having a more compelling vision for the future of" the country that people in his state know he is "capable of accomplishing."" Too long, too many quotes. If it's even necessary to include this (I'm not sure that it is, since it seems to be essentially fluff), it should be shortened to something like "He predicted that Iowans' knowledge of his accomplishments would help him in the Iowa caucuses." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Next, Vilsack was asked some questions by Rolling Stone about his campaign. He made a distinction between "experience and judgment" noting the importance of the latter." "In an interview with Rolling Stone, Vilsack drew a distinction between experience and judgment, and emphasized the importance of the latter." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * "Next, the candidate was asked some questions by Rolling Stone about his campaign." I do not understand why you persist in using so many more words than are necessary.  That thirteen word sentence tells us nothing at all that "In an interview with Rolling Stone..." doesn't.  Can you explain your preference for it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * I must've skipped over this or something.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, but the use of the definite article to refer to the interview is confusing given that that's its first mention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "On Iraq, Vilsack attacked the surge plan of Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain as "making a big mistake bigger by putting even more troops into Iraq" that the military does "not have the capacity" for." "He also attacked Republican candidate John McCain's planned Iraq troop surge as "making a big mistake bigger", and denied that the military had the resources to execute it." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Better, but now the word "Iraq" is repeated unnecessarily. My preference continues to be simply removing "On Iraq". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He discounted the importance of name recognition as a candidate explaining that "people don’t have to remember my name, they only have to remember the first letter which is V. It stands for vision, it stands for victory, it stands for Vilsack."" "In discounting the importance of name recognition, he said "people..."" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Later in the interview he expressed his satisfaction with frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton labeling himself as a "big fan of Senator Clinton."" "He also called himself a "big fan of Senator Clinton"" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to emphasize this point to show that he was okay with Hillary being the frontrunner despite the fact that he was running a campaign supposedly against her. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a reasonable thing to want to emphasize. Can you clarify how you think the current version better emphasizes it than my proposed version or something similarly brief?  I don't see any difference in emphasis between the two. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that my version states that he expressed his satisfaction of Clinton as the front runner, which simply draws attention to the quote, and explains further that he is a "fan" of a supposed political opponent. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, but as a compromise how about "He also expressed his satisfaction with frontrunner Hillary Clinton, calling himself "a big fan"." as a compromise? Still has him expressing satisfaction and calling himself a fan of Clinton, but tightens the wording a bit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ I like your version. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack embarked on a campaign tour of the first primary state of New Hampshire in January 2007." How about rewording to "In January, Vilsack toured New Hampshire, site of the first primary."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * This is better, but the word excess continues: why say "embarked on a campaign tour of" when "toured" will suffice? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "First he met with middle school students where he discussed his plans for rebuilding Iraq, dismissing his Democratic rivals' calls for "capping" the number of troops in the nation, stating "we've got to be taking troops out of Iraq."" Gerunds everywhere! Maybe reword to "There he met with middle school students, with whom he discussed his plans for rebuilding Iraq.  Dismissing his Democratic opponents' calls for caps on American troops in Iraq, Vilsack advocated a troop withdrawal." ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Next, he visited with employees of the nonprofit Granite State Independent Living group where he discussed his frustration with the limitations of public funds because of the government's "spending [of] billions of dollars to reconstruct a country halfway around the world."" How about "He also talked about Iraq with employees of the Granite State Independent Living Group, blaming the costs of rebuilding for the lack of public funds available for domestic projects."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "On a return to Iowa later in the month, Vilsack reiterated his opposition to the "capping" terminology on the war in Iraq, likening it to "staying the course."" "In Iowa later in the month, Vilsack reiterated his opposition to troop caps, likening them to "staying the course"." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "On February 15 before a planned appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno..." "On February 15, before an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno..." (really, are there many impromptu Tonight Show appearances?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He explained that his campaign remained carbon neutral by purchasing carbon credits for any emissions left by any campaign activities." "He explained that his campaign remained carbon neutral through the purchase of carbon credits." (Carbon neutrality is a well enough known concept that there shouldn't be any need to explain it; just wikilink it). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Later in the day, Vilsack went to Los Angeles for the Tonight Show where he joked about his relative obscurity." Shorten to something like "On the Tonight Show, Vilsack joked about his relative obscurity." We've already established the date of the Tonight Show appearance, so there's no need to reiterate that it was on the same day. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good (though I'd say that "appearance" is still an unnecessary word. See if you agree; if not, don't sweat it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "In response to a question about Leno's occasional joking about the candidate, Vilsack remarked that he was okay with the joking because "when you are just below the margin of error in polls, anything anybody says about you is important."" Shorten to something like "Vilsack remarked that he was okay with Leno making jokes about him, because "when you are..."" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack stated that he hoped his appearance on the show would decrease the discrepancy on name recognition between him and his fellow Democratic rivals." I'd suggest eliminating this sentence all together. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He summed up his campaign explaining that he "came up against something for the first time in [his] life that hard work and effort couldn’t overcome."" How about "In explaining his withdrawal, he said that he "came up..."" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack lambasted the current presidential process explaining that it had been overrun by money. He left the race proclaiming that "It is money and only money that is the reason we are leaving today."" Maybe combine to "In lambasting what he saw as a financially driven electoral process, he said "It is money..."" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to emphasize that Vilsack was blaming the failure of his campaign on a lack of funding. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but how does rewording reduce emphasis? The quote saying that money is the only reason he was withdrawing is still there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "He left the race proclaiming..." attempts to reflect the emotion he felt, and highlights that these were his final words as a candidate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "Bemoaning an electoral process that he saw as dominated by fundraising, he left the race proclaiming..."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "During the campaign Vilsack reported earning $1.1 million and ended the campaign with only $396,000 cash on hand." First, "earning" seems a strange choice of verb here. How about "raising"?  Second, "during the campaign" is an ambiguous modifier; it currently reads as though he reported during the campaign, when I presume that he actually reported after leaving the campaign. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * The ambiguous modifier remains. How about "Vilsack raised $1.1 million during the campaign and had $396,000 on hand at the time of his withdrawal." or similar? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see "during the course of the campaign" as being ambiguous. How else can it be interpreted other than "this was the amount he raised during his campaign"?
 * A literal reading would be that he reported during the campaign ("During the course of the campaign, Vilsack reported..."). I know what you mean, but good writing avoids situation in which the literal meaning and the clearly intended meaning are different (unless it's for rhetorical or figurative effect, which it obviously isn't here).  See dangling modifier.  Also, I'm not clear on why you added "the course of", which doesn't seem to add anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ I added "during his run" since he raised the money while he campaigned. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest reordering the polling section. Since the race he was in was for the Democratic nomination, how he was doing against his Democratic opponents seems more on point than his performance in purely hypothetical races against different Republican opponents. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Rasmussen reports showed on December 18, 2006 that Tom Vilsack led former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in a head to head matchup by a margin of 37% to 29%. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led Vilsack by 56% to 28%." I'd suggest rewording for greater clarity, to something like "A Rasmussen report published December 18, 2006 that polled voters on their preferences in a variety of hypothetical presidential matchups showed that Vilsack was preferred to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee by a margin of 37% to 29%, but trailed former New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani 56% to 28%." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "In February 2007, prior to Vilsack's withdrawal, the candidate trailed Republican Senator John McCain in a head to head matchup by a margin of 50% to 22%" How about "A similar poll, published in February 2007 before Vilsack's withdrawal, found that he trailed Republican Senator John McCain 50% to 22%." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Rasmussen wikilink goes where you want it to go. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...Vilsack was viewed favorable by 21% of the electorate and unfavorable by 21%." Should be adverbs: favorably and unfavorably. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "On ideology, 19% of voters considered Vilsack a moderate, 9% considered him a liberal and 7% considered him a conservative." A couple of things: first "On ideology" adds nothing to the sentence and should probably be removed. Second, I'd suggest "respondents" rather than "voters". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "A majority 65% of respondents could not describe Vilsack's political stands." I'd suggest deleting "A majority", which adds nothing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "According to Gallup, Vilsack stood at 1% in November and December 2006 among the field of other Democrats." How about "In the race for Democratic nominee, Gallup polls gave Vilsack 1% support in November and December 2006.  This fell to 0% in January 7, where it remained until his withdrawal in February."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "After withdrawing from the race, Vilsack endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidency on March 25, 2007 hoping to gain traction for the candidate in Iowa." I'd put in a full stop right after 2007, and include the other information (if you really think it's necessary) elsewhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Hmm. I'm still not sure what "He had hoped to gain traction for the candidate in Iowa." is intending to say.  Can you explain to me what you mean by it, and maybe I can suggest a rewording? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Momentum" would probably a better word to use since Clinton already had "traction." I'll add this, let me know if it makes sense. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's clearer. I'd suggest replacing "the candidate's" with "her" or "Clinton's", and I'd also change the tense to past from past perfect (i.e. "He hoped" rather than "He had hoped", since the latter only makes sense if we're speaking from a reference point in the past, which I don't see as being the case here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "He gave his rationale by identifying Clinton..." How about "He called Clinton..."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good (I even prefer your verb choice to mine). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...the $400,000 debt accumulated by the campaign." How about "...his $400,000 campaign debt"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * One tiny change I'd suggest here: change "the campaign's debt" to "his campaign's debt". Otherwise, I like what you've done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Tom Vilsack campaigned for Clinton around the nation and served as a national co-chairman and advisor trying to help her win the early Caucus state of Iowa, which she ultimately finished in third place behind Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards." Extremely awkward, and needs to be reworked. Maybe something like "Vilsack campaigned for Clinton nationwide as national campaign co-chairman, and also focussed on helping win the Iowa caucuses.  Despite his efforts, Clinton finished third in the caucuses behind Barack Obama and John Edwards." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * I'm not seeing what change you've made here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ I must've skipped this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Following Hillary Clinton's withdrawal, Vilsack endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency on July 15, 2008 identifying Obama as the "only candidate" for voters who want to change "the tone in Washington" and who are "about solving the problems of America" while being "against partisanship"" First of all, this sentence has no full stop. Second of all, it uses quotes unnecessarily.  Third of all, it's awkward.  Maybe something like "Following Clinton's withdrawal, Vilsack endorsed Obama on July 15, 2008."  I don't think anything beyond that is really helpful, but if you think it is maybe include it in an additional sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good, but is there any particular reason you use their first names? They're both used earlier in the same paragraph, and normally only last names are used in subsequent occurrences. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)  no reason --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vilsack was later nominated by President-elect Obama to serve as the United States Secretary of Agriculture in his administration." No problems with the writing here, but why not go further and say that "Obama later selected Vilsack to serve as his Secretary of Agriculture."? If you're going to deal with events that occurred well after Vilsack's withdrawal, you might as well go all the way. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * "He was confirmed for the post by the Senate on Inauguration day." Looks good, but I'd suggest throwing in Wikilinks for Senate and Inauguration Day (I believe that the D should be capitalized). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "During the campaign, he emphasized the War in Iraq, and discussed ways for it to come to a conclusion." How about "During the campaign, he emphasized the War in Iraq and his plan for ending it."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ I also changed around some of words in the following paragraph just because I think it flows better. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, and I like your changes to the next paragraph (watch the highlighting you do before copy and paste jobs, though! ). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
Everything appears to be properly cited, and all sources used pass WP:RS. The only exception is the lead, which, as noted above, deals with material not covered, and therefore not cited, in the rest of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?
Mostly okay. The only thing that jumps out at me as being conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of the Vilsack campaign's interaction with other campaigns. Did he criticize any of his opponents by name? Was he ever criticized by any of them? Did he raise any issues that were subsequently addressed by them? That kind of thing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There wasn't much interaction, like I've said above, he seemed content that Hillary was the frontrunner and mostly attacked President Bush. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll call this sufficiently broad, then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it neutral?
Generally fine. There are a few places where the wording is unhelpfully sympathetic towards Vilsack, but I addressed all of those in the "well-written" section. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it stable?
There was a bit of an edit war last week. It seems to have died down, so for now I'll say pass, but if anything flairs up between now and whenever I finally dispose of this review, I may revisit this criterion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
Yes. Good image choices, all but one of which are verifiably freely licensed or in the public domain. The one exception includes a fair use rationale very much in line with Wikipedia practice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)