Talk:Virgil Goode 2012 presidential campaign/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 01:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 01:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - First round of review comments

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * No issues ✅


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * I am not seeing any copyright violations, mainly quotes or lists of states etc. I am not seeing any issues. ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * Tool lists 8 links as dead (Marked in red)
 * Tool lists 8 links as "likely dead" (marked in orange)
 * Tool lists 3 links with connection problems (marked in blue)
 * Bad links have all been fixed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well Written

 * I am stunned at how large this article is when I look at it - it's twice as long as the one on the guy who actually won the election, this guy came in fifth with not even 0.1% of the vote - that really seems excessive. Looking at it now I have doubts this fulfills the GA Criteria 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." - I will be paying particular attention to this as I go through the article
 * Every detail is necessary to a full understanding of the campaign. There is no detail just thrown out there for no reason.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree, during my review I have pointed out how it belabors the point that source stated that "Goode would take votes from Romney" and then he says "No I will take them from both". That is in there so many times it's not even funny, seems like every time a source was found it was put in there, even if it basically reiterates something already in there. I'm sorry but if you think that's necessary then we had a totally different understanding of what a "Good Article" is. MPJ  -US 01:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is organized in chronological order and so the same issue may arise but it is always in a different context and explained in a different way. Let me go point by point and explain why each mention is necessary:


 * In Early stages: "Political strategist David Saunders speculated that if Goode chose to run, he would take votes away from the Republicans in Virginia and possibly sway the state to the Democrats"
 * This is the first speculation over the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Nomination campaign: "Additionally, in response to the speculation that as a conservative candidate, he would take votes away from the Republicans, Goode said he was limiting individual campaign contributions to $200 and would run a "grassroots campaign," which he felt would appeal to disaffected Democrats. He maintained, "If I’m fortunate enough to get the nomination of the Constitution Party, I will take as many votes from Obama as I would from the Republican nominee."[26]"
 * This is Goode's first reaction to the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Exposure: "In May, The Des Moines Register published an article titled, "Third Parties Goode News For Obama", which speculated Goode would draw votes from Romney, particularly in the swing state of Virginia, and thus helping Obama win the election.[51] The "spoiler" label followed Goode throughout the campaign, but he maintained he would take votes from both Romney and Obama, and felt confident in his ability to win.[52] He reflected this sentiment during a May 13 interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, saying that he wanted to give voters a choice, and hoped to take enough votes from both the Republicans and Democrats in order to win the election. In addition, during the interview, to highlight his support for term limits, Goode announced that if elected, he would only seek one term; in contrast to President Obama, whom Goode criticized for focusing too much on re-election than effective policy.[53]"
 * This explains that the issue came up often and shows how he explained it away.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In On the Campaign Trail: " The Washington Times,[76] the Richmond Times-Dispatch,[77] and The Washington Post[78] all published articles questioning whether Goode would cost Virginia for Romney. Though Goode continued to argue that he would take votes from both the Democrats and Republicans, Democratic strategist Paul Goldman labeled the run as a "net loss for Romney",[76] and Republican consultant Chris LaCivita said, "if you want to see Barack Obama reelected president of the United States, do whatever you can for Virgil Goode."[78] Nevertheless, the Times noted that third party support generally falls before the election, and that according to University of Mary Washington political science professor Stephen Farnsworth, even within Virginia, Goode is less-known outside his former congressional district.[76] However, Bob Holsworth, a political analyst for Richmond's WTVR-TV said that Goode could make an impact in Virginia with much less than nine percent support, "if he pulls 2, 3, 4 percent, and in all likelihood those votes would come from people who are more likely to support Mitt Romney."[79] Goode addressed this issue during a July 12 interview with Washington D.C.'s WMAL-AM radio, arguing that Romney "is like putty" and not much different from Obama. He described himself as an "average citizen" and said he was offering a choice to voters as a candidate not beholden to moneyed interests, and who is in favor of term limits and reducing the distribution of green cards.[80]"
 * This shows how widespread the press coverage of the issue had become at this point in the campaign, and goes into greater detail about how political analysts reacted to it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Media Campaign: "Goode appeared live on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on September 11 and responded to media personality and Romney supporter Donald Trump who tweeted "Republicans must get Virgil Goode out of the race in Virginia. He will take votes away from @MittRomney." Goode said he was "not too scared," and argued that Romney should listen more to "people on the street" than Trump.[99] "
 * As I said below, considering the importance of Donald Trump, this could not simply be ignored.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Media Campaign: "Again addressing the "spoiler" issue, he held that balancing the federal budget and securing jobs for American citizens were more important issues than who becomes president.[108]"
 * This demonstrates a different approach to continued media interest in the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Background
 * I honestly think this section is overly elaborate and recaps more than it should when there is a perfectly fine article on Virgil Goode people can go read if they want to learn more about when he was born or that he was in the Army National Guard. I would like to see this cut down to just provide background on what led to the presidential campaign, not his life story. After all anyone who comes to this article specifically will be looking for the "Presidential Campaign" otherwise they'd read Goode's article.
 * This section has a lot of unnecessary detail - referencing criteria 3b ❌
 * I won't comment any further on this section right now since i am hoping it will be severely reduced
 * I've cut down on this section so it is now only two paragraphs. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Early stages
 * "He participated in a CPAC panel arguing against both illegal and legal immigration,[17] and wrote an article for The American Conservative opposing the passage of the South Korea–United States Free Trade Agreement.[18]" - this seems to not really be relevant to the campaign. The "early stages" seems to include every political move he made from 2008 until deciding to run - again I am feeling like parts of this is off topic.
 * This particular statement pertains to the previous sentence that he "increased his visibility in paleoconservative circles." All of the political moves he made pertain to the Constitution Party and appealing to the paleoconservative base.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Spell out "CPAC" first time it's used.
 * Done. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "style, but argued" does not need the comma
 * Done. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are four different comments on the rumor that he would run - I get that they're all attributable, but at this point in time it's just the rumor that he would run, too many opinions often covers the lack of content IMO,
 * I disagree. This is vital information on the reaction to his potential candidacy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "After the FEC received and posted the documents on their website four days later,[23] the media reported on the update.[24]" the article is basically stating "he decided to run, filed the papers and then the media reported on this" - an article stating that the media reported on it, instead of simply using the fact that they reported on it as sources. It is a self-evident statement that is nothing but filler here.
 * That the media reported on it shows the level of interest in the campaign. It seems most campaigns just file with the FEC without any media coverage.  Plus, this phrase serves as a transition into the Daily Caller interview.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The next day, Goode set up a campaign website[26] and informed the press that he would formally announce his candidacy on February 21 in front of Federal Hall in New York City.[27]" - this is really going overboard in detail, reporting that he announced that he would announce his candidacy - just skip to the announcement, not the announcement of the announcement, it is detracting from the narrative,
 * The public announcement of a presidential announcement is not simply a detail. It is an important development in a campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not objecting to the public annoncement, but the fact that it includes that he made an announcement that he was making an announcement, just jump to the main event the actual announcement not the pre-announcement minutia.  MPJ  -US 01:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly what you said and as I explained, the announcement of an announcement is an important matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * National convention
 * "Just prior to the nomination, 2008 vice presidential nominee Darrell Castle decided to enter the race, saying several convention delegates had urged him to run." not sure how relevant this is to Goode's campaign? mentioned as an aside almost, it does not help improve our understanding of Goode's campaign.
 * This accounts for the new name on the final tally to add to the names already introduced as participating in the earlier debate. It helps to show why this person who just entered the race finished in a strong second.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Ducey with 15, and Roth with six.", six should be "6" since all other numbers in the sentence are written in numbers.
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Afterwards" should be "Afterward"
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "unexpected, and that" no need for a comma
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Exposure
 * I am hoping this is not actually the case, but it seems like this section contains some sort of refrence to every statement made by Goode in this period of time.
 * It doesn't.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I get that, I guess I should have stated it clearly "This seem excessively and unnecessarily detailed in the coverage of almost every statement he ever made, it's an encyclopedia, not a campaign transcript".  MPJ  -US 01:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was a transcript it would be all quotes and have no prose. Goode, himself, is quoted only twice in the entire section for a total of 20 words out of the 765 in the section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * On the campaign trail
 * "The Constitution Party announced in its bimonthly newsletter that Goode would travel to Buffalo and Syracuse at the end of June to coordinate ballot access efforts with the Constitution Party of New York.[64]" - again listing an announcement of Goode doing something instead of actually listing him doing it, padding, pure and simple.
 * It's not padding. It's announcing that Goode would travel outside Virginia to campaign.  It also shows how the party informed its supporters on campaign activities. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're not on the same page here. I am not saying his campainging outside of Virginia is "padding" but the way it's staed here - the announcement is made, but nothing about how actually doing it - it's covering the announcement but not the actual activity. And "how the party informed its supporters" is definitely padding and off focus. It's like saying "I am going to win the Election" and then leaving it at that - Just cover the actual campaign stops, not the announcements.  MPJ  -US 01:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to phrase in it that particular way because I can't find a source placing him specifically there; only one stating he will go there and another saying he came back from there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The article seems to walk down the same road again and again, different people, different sources - all saying the same thing "he will take votes from Romney" - I think by now we all get it, it's getting very repetitive, not the sign of a "Good Article"
 * The first paragraph (mostly June) discusses ballot access and immigration. The second paragraph (early July) discusses polling and shows the increasing concerns about the spoiler effect.  The third paragraph (end of July, early August) covers media coverage and struggles obtaining ballot access in Virginia.  The last paragraph (August) covers the western campaign trip and updates on ballot access.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to be clear here - are you saying you don't think the article repeats the whole "he will take votes from Romney" angle on multiple occasions? Not just in this specific section but all up and down the article? I just want to see if we're on a different page or a different book in regards to this. MPJ  -US 01:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I explain this above. It is treated in a different context each time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "an allegory of Goode nearly missing a speech after helping a dog that a truck had stricken" - sorry but Allegory is not really the right word to use here unless you state what it is an allegory for - could be an allegory for missing the point but being a nice guy, for not being elected but still helping someone etc. it cannot stand alone.
 * Not sure why I used the term "allegory", but I have now changed it to "story".--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * These statements "seeing inconsistencies in the ballot and believing many of the signatures collected were fraudulent. The Goode campaign rejected these claims and argued the investigation was politically motivated." are totally unsouced, need sources.
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Salt Lake Tribune previewed his western campaign swing." again, stating that something would take place instead of stating what took place.
 * This reflects the media coverage and foreshadows the western campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Again overly detailed, listing every single stop wheather it was for 20 people or ... 100? the facts are getting cluttered by detail.
 * The number of people in attendance is relevant to reader understanding of the campaign support through crowd draw.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Media campaign
 * I am sorry but two appearances does not constitute a "media blitz" in my view, it's trying to dress a molehil up as a mountain.
 * I changed "blitz" to "campaign" since that is the title of the section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And again with the "he's taking Romney's votes" stick we get hit over the head with.
 * It's unavoidable if brought up, particularly by Donald Trump. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "the campaign held a moneybomb" what the heck? in other words he held a fundraiser, not that unusual, why does this one deserve mention?
 * A moneybomb is different than a fundraiser. It was coined during the 2008 campaign by the Ron Paul campaign.  It is focused, almost exclusively, on Internet fundraising in a short period of time.  This just shows how the Goode campaign tried to connect itself to the Paul campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Again with the "taking votes from Romney" bit, if he actually HAD taken significant votes from Romney then maybe it would be work putting in more than once, but he got less than 0.1% - I do believe Romney's margin was more than that. It's like Goode is so bland there is nothing else to say so this gets repeated over and over again every time a source is found.
 * It has more to do with his effect on the swing state of Virginia itself where the margin was expected to be very close between Romney and Obama.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The party qualified for write-in status in many states in which ballot access efforts fell short." finally something other than listing cam[aingn stops or "he's taking votes from Romney" and it does not even tell us how it qualified for write-in status?
 * Every state is different, but it usually is just the filing of paperwork. It explains in the "On the campaign trail" section how he did so in North Carolina.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Debate stage
 * "After the debate, Goode attended the Tums Fast Relief 500 NASCAR event in Martinsville, Virginia where he handed out campaign literature to those in attendance." - just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedic entry.
 * It shows the people whom Goode tried to appeal to and that he is at an event with a blue link.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources/verifiable

 * Formatting looks okay, data is complete, looks like RS new sources for the majority or primary sources which for what they support is acceptable too.

Broad in coverage

 * Yes, but it also gets totally lost in details

Neutral

 * Yes

Stable

 * Nothing on talk page or history in the last year looks like it's not stable.

Illustrated / Images

 * No problems ✅

General

 * - have completed my review, right now there are a lot of issues around the article going on and on about how Goode would take votes from Romney and being overly and unnecessarily detailed. The article suffers from trivia bloat and repetition, not the hallmarks of a good article.

But I want to be fair and I have seen articles improve a great deal in a short time. So I am pottuing the review on hold for 7 days to allow an overhaul to be done if it is to reach GA status.  MPJ  -US 03:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thorough review. I will try to address your concerns. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - It seems that we're at an impasse on this article. I do not think this is a "Good Article" in its current state and you totally disagree with it, so no improvements would be made so I could pass it. I really have no other option then than to fail it based on my review of the article. Feel free to submit it for GA again, I will leave it alone if it comes back around and my opinion should not influence anyone who reviews this for GA in the future, I want them to come to their independent opinion of this article.  MPJ  -US 08:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the time you put into this.  I believe your review did indeed help the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)