Talk:2010 United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania

2010 United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 3, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
July 24, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
September 20, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Weird

Isn't that weird to want to preserve the article history when it's only edited by one person and has no edit summaries? One might as well put the content out there as intended, a finished article, because I can't imagining anyone bothering to look at the article history, in a review or outside of it. Hekerui (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly concerned about keeping material that might be needed down the road. For example, I had an entire "Issues" section that I cut from the article, but if we ever needed it back I could go in and grab it. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see some references (for example "Dems here back Sestak for Senate" and "2 Specter foes team up for meeting on health care") that have no weblink/no retrieve date but the rest of the citation. If they are from print media the page should be included, if possible. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most of those cases, I got the article/info from a Lexis Nexis search because the weblink was no longer available. I included links where possible. But you're right, I left off the pages, so I'll go back to Lexis when I can get access to it again (which should be within two days or so) and find/readd the pages to the citations. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping article history is how we do things on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is very important, sometimes not, but always the right way to do things. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

Should this be merged with its parent article? Why is this a separate fork? Don't get me wrong: This is a great article; it's well written and very interesting. It just seems like too small a topic for Wikipedia. —Markles 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion at the United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2010 talk page that that article was too focused on the Sestak/Specter campaign, and should be reworked for focus more strongly on the general election. My own feeling was that the Specter/Sestak primary was in many ways more interesting and notable than the general election, for multiple reasons including Specter's loss after 30 years, Sestak's come-from-behind victory, allegations of Sestak's job offer in the Obama administration, etc. etc. I asked on that talk page whether it might be prudent to create a separate article for the primary election, which would both allow a strong focus on that race and prevent the general article from being too primary-focused. There was some agreement voiced to that idea, and no disagreement, so I started working on it. This is the end result, and I'd argue the large amount of reliable sources (and extensive media coverage) used indicates that the primary election is notable enough in itself for a separate page altogether. Plus WP:SIZE indicates that when a page gets too long it might be prudent to break them into separate pages, and I think to combine this Democratic primary page with the general page would make that article way too long. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the recently added size tag, this article is longer than the general article, yes, but that's because the general article needs expansion (which I'm working on), not because of problems here. This article is long because it's comprehensive. I see that tag was added but there were no comments made here on the talk page about any particular sections that were overlong or parts that need to be cut. If no such discussion takes place in the next few days I will likely remove that tag. (I also don't think there's ANY legitimacy to the claim that it reads like a personal essay.) — Hun ter Ka hn 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is NO reason why this page should be merged back into the parent article. It has alot of info, and deserves its own article. Not to mention, it is pretty historical, considering career politician Arlen Specter was upset in the primary. Very rarely do Democrat incumbents ever lose primary elections. Also, Specter was supported by almost every single major Democratic figure. Again, having a seperate article is no brainer.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First comments

Before I get deeper into the article, there are a few technical things to sort out. I have listed them below and they are easily correctable:

This article links to two different disambugation pages. Fix that so it goes to the direct page you want it to.
- Fixed the disambs. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your Rasmussen report external links are dead, these need to be either replaced or fixed
- I believe I've fixed them both. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove usage of:
- assert
- steal
  - Done, to both. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see alot about the race but the smallest section is about the results. Probably good to expand it to discuss the implications of the race explicitely.
- The reason I kept this section somewhat short is that I was trying to be very careful to keep this article focused specifically on the primary and not go too far into other territory like the general election. I believe (and think this article proves it) that this particular primary was significant enough in itself to warrant its own article, and I wanted to keep the article within that scope, rather than making it redundant with general election info. That being said, I'm sure you're right and that we could probably expand this section a bit. Could you maybe give me some more specific guidance as to what you'd like to see here? Or, perhaps it would be better if we could review the whole article and then save this section for last, since you'll then have a very good understanding of the big picture and what additions to this section might be warranted? Let me know either way what you think. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will certainly now go through the article itself, yes. What I mean by 'implications' is answering the question: "Does any expert believe that this race made the Democrats lose the general?" - while this does bring it into conflict with the general election article, I still am itching to include it. Why is the article notable? Why should anyone care if Sestak beat Specter? I think that should be addressed in a results section, even if its just a few sentences. Nevertheless, I will now go through the article to make notations section-by-section. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once those issues are done, I can go down the checklist much easier. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section by Section review

(Note: I am typing this as I read though it)

Lead

First and foremost, must be cited. I'm looking first at the statement, "was described as the most bitterest". I can see a 'by whom' tag ready to be there.
- My understanding of WP:LEADCITE (correct me if I'm wrong) is that since all of the information is presented in the article already, the only parts that need to be cited in the lead are parts that are likely to be challenged, in order to avoid redundant inline citations. To that end, I've cited the bit you referred to (reworded a bit too), and the part where I talk about the commercials/anti-Republican momentum. Do you feel other parts need citing in the lead?
Omit the Chris Matthews sentence. I don't see how that is really something so important to put in the lead.
- Done. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lead looks better now. Great! Lord Roem (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Matthews speculation

I think this section is fine. Good usage of in-line citation.
- Thanks! Will address the rest of this later today. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlen Specter party switch

Need a cite for "Cons. Republicans vowed to defeat..."
- Added a new source. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conclude the section with some kind of rebuttal point to the Republican quotes so it seems balanced. Something like "Despite this, Specter defended his position by .... "
- Added some more info. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sestak

Good! Had something at the end about Specter's response to this to it flows better with the article so far.

Candidates

I'd probably remove the whole paragraph explaining these other candidates who are not particulary relevant to this discussion. Just make it a list. INCLUDE the others, but don't give them a whole paragraph.
- I'd much rather have at least one sentence in here about them, Trying to picture it as a reader, I don't think I'd appreciate just seeing these two names on a list with no indication of who they are, even if they didn't play a big role. I tightened it to have only one sentence about each. Would that be acceptable? — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. I see what you did. That's cool. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little annoyed by the placement of this paragraph. hmm. I guess it's ok to put it here. Maybe it would be better if it was closer to the end, because it seems like a 'wrap-up' where you say 'here are the candidates in the end'.
- Well, the section was here before I started on the article, but I think this is the fairly common structure for election articles of these type. I see what you are saying, but personally, I think it works well here, since it sort of sums up who the main candidates are right before it goes into the "Campaign" section. To move it to the end, it's not very helpful to the reader because they will have already known from the campaign section who the final candidates are. Know what I mean? — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just looked around at other election articles, and you're right. Its fine then. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early months

This paragraph needs to open with a more generalized statement about the campaign. Rather, it goes straight into "Joe Sestak this...Arlen Specter that" if you understand what I mean.
- I agree. I added a segue sentence. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again in the end of the article, give some rebuttal point to make it balanced.
- I added a rebuttal, but I kept it short, because I kind of felt that this section was ending with Sestak's rebuttal to Specter, so I didn't want to go too detailed with another Specter rebuttal and give him too much undue balance. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great! Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toomey, Obama get involved

Good. No qualms here.

Specter maintains lead

Give an in-line cite to "Specter called on him to resign" at the top of this section.
- Done. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Omit 'only' in "Specter only missed four." Seems like an opinionated "Specter was so good he only missed four".
- Done. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race grows more heated

Maybe put a quote from a debate/heated moment in the quote box rather than the endoresment one. That demonstrates the content better.
- I was concerned about doing this because if I chose a Sestak quote, it would balanced in his favor against Specter, and vice versa. Do you maybe have a suggestion for a specific quote? — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. True. In that case I'd just omit the quote box altogether. Because it kind of disconnects with the context of the article. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum

Cite for "was considered the most important endorsement of the race".
- Done. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the bottom of this section, when you discuss the fundraising gaps, explain why that matters. Something to the effect of "This would be difficult in the run-up to the primary becasue expert X predicted that lots of money was needed for commericials"
- Added a sentence which I believe is properly cited in this source. Couldn't find another source that more specifically states why this is important. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV ads

Good!

Sestak gains

Good! I especially like the caption for the photo here.

Alleged White House job offer

Remove the stuff about Issa not investigating. All of that is post-primary and not relevant to this article.
- I narrowed it all to one sentence. I agree much of that was post-election stuff outside the scope of the article topic, but I feel to not address it at all will leave this section incomplete and leave the reader hanging, so I kept it to the bare minimum. (Will continue the rest of this later today. Thanks!) — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, the way you did it was fine. Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove some of the quotations here and focus more on the implications of the offer. Why would/did it hurt Specter?
- Removed some quotes, although I kept in some of the ones from Sestak's initial answers to the question, as I thought in that instance, since the mini-scandal was caused directly by his responses, it was better to quote them verbatim than attempt to paraphrase. Other less important quotes were dropped. As for how it hurt or affected Specter, I don't have any sources that discuss that. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

I don't think this is needed. If you want to keep it, only keep the bigger names. For example, you could easily delete the multiple mentions of 'Democratic Committee' replacing it with "6 Democratic committees".
- Well, I guess I personally feel as long as they are properly cited, there's no reason not to include information like this. But I see what you mean, and I've dropped the section. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must agree its a tough choice. In my mind I'm just thinking that beyond the big endorsements (the larger labor unions, Obama, etc. :P) I don't think its needed. Did the X County Democratic Committee really change the race? Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results

I repeat the comments I wrote at first: write a sentence or two about the implications of the race. Its probably somewhere in the Washington Post article you cite about this race being widely watched.
- I have tried to find a WP:RS that discusses whether this race (Sestak's win) cost the Democrats the seat, as you indicated above you were hoping to have added here. So far, I've found nothing. Will keep looking though... — Hun ter Ka hn 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not a requirement for the article per se, but I think it would certainly improve it. Tell me whether or not you find something. If its a wild goose chase, that will be fine, and I'll go through the article one last time before pulling out the checklist. So far, the improvements have been great! Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've looked around at a lot of sources. There were a few from before the outcome of the primary where people (like Rendell) predicted that Sestak would lose the general election if he won the primary. However, I haven't been able to find any post-election sources that suggested this, or that Sestak cost the Dems the seat. In fact, this fairly recently year-in-review article made no mention of it, nor does this article which places the race in the context of GOP Senate gains. Sorry about this. :/ I can keep looking though, if you like. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did my own quick look for sources a few hours ago and confirmed what you've found. Nothing indicating it directly that wouldn't be a contrived source. In that case, I have no further fixes for the article - I will read through it one more time and then pull out the checklist for a final decision on promotion. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any questions, feel free to ask! Very good article and certainly a viable candidate for GA. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

Impressed on the quality of refs and on the detail of the article. Well done!

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I was rather surprised at how neutral this is considering the topic.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Pictures really make this article cool to read
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Moving to promote. :)

-- Lord Roem (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

need help

I'm translating this article to Chinese at here, but just find out that this link is dead, I already try archive.org, archive.is & webcitation.org, didn't get a backup, could anyone please help me out here? Thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1453
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1452
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1441
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1428
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1406
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1379
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090626081032/http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com:80/2009/06/25/pa-poll-specter-ahead-but-red-flags-abound/ to http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/06/25/pa-poll-specter-ahead-but-red-flags-abound/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1304/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. dear Sir I am very poor sir. please help for myEducatio. Mahmudul Hasan Thorun (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]