Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:11, 29 July 2010.

Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992

 * Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the requirements of an FA. Here is a link to the previous GA review for a reference. William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * General note to the confused: User:Xtzou who make so many complaints at the GA review, was a Mattisse sock and shouldn't (necessarily) be taken seriously. – iride  scent  20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Mattisse was one of the best GAN reviewers we had. And yes, she should be taken seriously.  Aaroncrick  TALK 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All criticism left by Mattisse was addressed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Brilliant article, and a great example for others to follow. Came across it as a reader, found everything I needed to know; later came back as a GA reviewer and couldn't find a single thing that needed improving. Rebecca (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose File:Ross_Perot_logo.gif & File:Debates.jpg fail nfcc contextual significance, thus failing WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The campaign logo actually is a free use image as it is not eligible for copyright, and I believe the debate photo qualifies under fair use as an historical image. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The representation of the flag does cross the threshold of originality, and thus is copyrightable, and there is no such thing as a "an historical image" exemption to the non free image use policy Fasach Nua (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are allowed with a valid rationale as is the case with the debate image. You seem to be the only editor with an issue with images and when you describe the problem you use legal jargon. If you have a suggestion about what should be done with the images, I would like to hear. I also wish that you would actually read the article and comment on the content.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose File:Ross_Perot_logo.gif is improperly licensed and File:Debates.jpg fails nfcc contextual significance, thus the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help. What needs to be done? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could the nominator please wrap up this image issue? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current licensing (lack of originality) for File:Ross_Perot_logo.gif could be apt; the fluttering flag graphic has been commonly exploited in the US political scene (in fact everywhere) for a long, long time and this is but a variant (crop perhaps) composed of stripes and simple stars. Threshold of originality has generally been a subjective opinion though...  Jappalang (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * neutral the licensing of File:Ross_Perot_logo.gif could be valid, equally it could be invalid, I could make an unconvincing argument either way, the oppose is stricken, but I will leave it to others as to whether WP:FA Criteria 3 is met. I do rate Jappalang as a good reviewer Fasach Nua (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. and Rebecca. Extensively and reliably sourced, in-depth and informative, written in an encyclopedic and readable fashion.--JayJasper (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - very well written and an interesting article. Great job. Dincher (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll come back and do a comprehensive review later, but two things that struck me on a quick glance is how you've got tow different date formats within the same citations. As an example, ref 97, "Ross Perot Slams McCain". Newsweek. January 16, 2008. Retrieved 28 May 2010."  Also, don't link to acronyms assuming the world knows what they mean- NAFTA, NAACP, write them out on first use. Courcelles (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I standardized the dates and wrote out the acronyms listed above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * As noted above, retrieval dates are in Brit format. I imagine this can be resolved by a bot - check with an admin
 * Ref 95: in the cite web template, "CNN" is given as "work" and AllPolitics as "publisher". Surely it's the other way round? (AllPolitics doesn't publish CNN)
 * Ref 96: Reuters is not a printed medium and should not be italicised; put it in the "publisher" field in the template, not "work". There are possibly other examples of the same, though I couldn't see them.

Otherwise, all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the issue in the refs and checked for similar issues with others but did not find any.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Image concerns : Stricken with the images' removal Two concerns as above. Jappalang (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:1992prescountymap2.PNG: What is the base map of this work (i.e. the map/data used to create the US geographical outline)?
 * File:Debates.jpg: I agree with Fasach Nua that this image fails FA criterion 3. Particularly the failure is due to WP:NFCC 1 (free equivalents) and 8 (contextual significance).  There is no critical commentary in the article about the scene illustrated by this copyrighted photograph.  The section of the article is talking about the event, with not a word on this particular moment; Bush Senior was the incumbent President then, and his portfolio would likely have photographs of this event by his entourage (White House photographs are "free").  So far, I see nothing in this scene that cannot be conveyed with words either.
 * I have removed both images. Hopefully the map will be reinserted after I receive confirmation of the base map from the author.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on criteria 1b and 1c. I made some tweaks to the article to align it with the MOS. It is certainly a fine account of the events of Perot's campaign, as the supporters above mentioned. On the other hand, I agree with Jappalang that the fair use claim for the debate picture is unfounded. More importantly, I feel this article is missing some more analytical content. Who were the people who supported Perot? Where were they concentrated? The article barely tells. There has been much academic research on Perot's campaign, as a cursory search of Google Scholar indicates, but this article is sourced mostly (if not entirely) from contemporary news coverage. Why were books like "Ross for boss: the Perot phenomenon and beyond" (ISBN 9780791448533), "Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence" (ISBN 9780472030996), and "Citizen Perot: his life and times" (ISBN 9780679447313) not consulted? Ucucha 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the debate image.
 * Thank you for clearing up the MOS issues.
 * I believe the actions are sufficiently analyzed, where necessary. Could you be more specific?
 * The supporters are mentioned in the article:
 * "They were angry at President Bush for reneging on his promise to not raise taxes.[16] The New York Times speculated that his "iconoclastic, take-no-prisoners persona and anti-politics politics"[17] would appeal to an "angry frustrated electorate".[17] "
 * "A large segment of his support came from Reagan Democrats, entrepreneurs[1] and suburban conservatives deemed "Perot Republicans", who agreed with the central theme of his campaign, though they disagreed with his pro-choice stance on abortion.[24]"
 * "Perot addressed the conventions, largely made up of "well dressed, middle aged"[46] individuals,"
 * "Although he failed to win any states in the Electoral College, he did receive over 30% of the vote in Maine and 27% in Utah, finishing second in both states. For the first time since George Wallace in 1968, a third party candidate won a county as Perot won several in the states of Alaska (divided into boroughs), California, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Texas and Maine. He won his largest percentage in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska and Loving County, Texas with over 40%.[91] Exit polls revealed that 35% of voters would have voted for Perot if they believed he could win.[92]"
 * The books would not have added anything significant to the article. I'm not inclined to add books just for the sake of adding books. I have found that News articles provide the best information for articles such as these because they clearly document the events of the campaign and how it affected the overall campaign.
 * I hope you will reconsider.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The supporters are indeed mentioned, but mostly anecdotally (the one about "well dressed, middle aged individuals" stood out to me in that regard), and not in an organized manner. In contrast, the academic literature contains quantitative and substantiated analysis of his support (as opposed to the thoughts of journalists). One of the FA criteria—in my view, the most important one—is 1c, which requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I don't think this article represents such a survey of the literature, and therefore it isn't comprehensive: it's missing in-depth (as opposed to anecdotal) coverage of the issues I outlined above. You mention that he got a high vote share in a Texas county with a population of about 100 and an Alaska borough with a population of about 60,000 (probably fewer in 1992), but what are the regions of the country where he did best in general? There are many more variables that are available from exit polling data, and that have no doubt been analyzed by political scientists, such as race, religion, urban-rural residence. I know the article mentions he did well among suburban voters, but that is based on what a journalist wrote early in the campaign, and may be quite different from the actual results. Ucucha 16:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. This may take a while to address, so I hope this review can remain on hold for at least another week. You also mentioned MOS. As far as you can see, are all the MOS issues addressed? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's up to the delegates to decide. I don't see any current MOS issues. I think you may be slightly overusing quotes, though. They should generally be used only when the quote's wording is especially engaging. That's a minor issue. It's a pity you had to remove the map. It would be even more interesting to have a map that shows only Perot's results (i.e., whether he got 10–15%, 15–20%, etcetera in a county, or something similar), if possible. Ucucha 17:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to create such a map in the near future.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The additions may not take as long as I once thought.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Better now, I've struck my oppose. Not yet convinced that it's enough for me to support. Ucucha 06:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Some suggestions for improvement:
 * 1.) The last sentence of the lead section contains a lot of info, and might be better with some rephrasing, or it might improve if the sentences were split up. My suggestion would be, "Perot still appeared on the ballot in every state during Election Day, the result of earlier draft efforts. On Election Day Perot finished in third place with 19 percent of the popular vote, which was the highest percentage won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912."
 * 2.) The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Background section currently reads, "Perot was a hawk on the Vietnam War, an advocate for Americans held prisoner of war and a supporter for their families." I would suggestion adding the word "as" before the phrase "prisoner of war", so the sentence reads, "... an advocate for Americans held as prisoner of war and a...." I believe the sentence retains better continuity this way.
 * 3.) I recommend changing the comma placement in the sentence from the 2nd paragraph of the "Frontrunner status" section which currently reads, "At the end of May, Perot called on President Bush to "climb in the ring" claiming that the President was using surrogates to attack him." I recommend changing it to, "At the end of May Perot called on President Bush to "climb in the ring", claiming that the President was using surrogates to attack him." I think this comma placement corresponds to a natural break in the sentence, similar to how the sentence would sound if read out loud. I would also be OK with keeping the comma after the word "May" and simply adding the new comma into the sentence.
 * 4.) The article's timeline gets a bit muddled in the middle of the 2nd paragraph of the "Frontrunner status" section. For instance, the sentence about interviewing Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins seems to come out of nowhere, and the 20/20 interview with Barbara Walters lacks a specific date. First, I would mention the exact date of the 20/20 interview, then if possible, provide more context about why the Hamilton Jordan/Ed Rollins sentence is worth mentioning.

I still need to go over a couple more paragraphs with a fine-tooth comb, but this should be a good start as far as fine details go, and I would look forward to possibly supporting this article with a bit more clean up work. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the comments. I split the last sentence of the lead as you suggested in #1, and rephrased it a bit. I added "as" to the first sentence of the second paragraph, and added the comma as you suggested. However, I decided to keep the comma after May because when I read it, I pause. I tried to fix the timeline/flow issue by adding a better transition to the beginning of the sentence mentioned, and by adding a statement to the end that was in the paragraph below. I also added the date to the 20/20 episode as you suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work addressing the previous suggestions. My final suggestions for improvement include...
 * 1.) Insert a paragraph break into what is currently the third paragraph of the "Frontrunner status" section. Specifically, I'd recommend the paragraph break before the sentence, "He campaigned in California in mid-June....", changing the word "He" to "Perot" for extra clarity.
 * 2.) Removal of the three red-links in the first paragraph of the "Reentrance" section. I'm doubtful each of the three individuals is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, making the red-links unnecessary and an ongoing distraction in the text. If you believe one or more of these individuals does meet English Wikipedia's notability requirements, then I'd recommend creating a stub article for that individual.
 * 3.) I'd recommend another paragraph break in what is currently the first paragraph of the "Final stages" section. Specifically, I'd recommend the paragraph break before the sentence, "By the end of October...."
 * With these minor issues address, I'm prepared to fully support this article's nomination. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.