Jump to content

Talk:2020 New York's 22nd congressional district election/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 04:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Apocheir (talk · contribs) at 00:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]

General

[edit]
  • Before starting with the review, any reason for high over-reliance on Post-Standard. It is used in 97 of the 207 citations, almost 50%. I am not doubting the reliability, but when Post-Standard is openly endorsing one of the candidate, I doubt whether it provides what we call "neutral" reporting. I just want to know your views. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Apocheir – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not expecting someone to start on this on New Year's Day :)
      I also mentioned the Post-Standard in the article's talk page, and agree that it's not great that two particular writers from the P-S are responsible for so many references. They're particularly overrepresented in the errors section. To be frank, there aren't a lot of good journalistic sources in this region, and (to my knowledge) no other news sources covered the court proceedings as consistently as the P-S. However, I'm less worried about partisan bias in that particular section; if there's one things both parties agree on, it's that the Boards of Elections screwed up.
      One thing that would help would be condensing the errors section somewhat, which I was hoping I could get some advice on. -Apocheir (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found few WP:HQRS:

This is a chapter from the book, The Roads to Congress 2020. Reading the abstract, it appears to me that this has significant coverage on the topic.
This has a section "A Nation of Litigation and Unsettled Races", which maybe is useful for some minor addition in the article.
Has some mention of this election in the end of the article.

Well, some reliable secondary sources (except the news sources) exist. You can access them either through WP:TWL, or request them at WP:REREQ. I am yet not convinced with the sourcing of the article. The Post-Standard is a local newspaper, and reliability has to be judged on case-to-case basis. I can ignore its over-reliance when it is used to cite uncontroversial-facts. But statements like: As it became clear that the next Congress would start with the seat empty, national attention intensified.; Republicans began an aggressive fundraising campaign (emphasis mine); Oneida County's largest error came to light in early January (emphasis mine), etc., which are all cited to Post Standard, do not give me confidence. Otherwise, it is comprehensive and is all-in-all well written. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful, thank you. The chapter in Roads to Congress 2020 titled "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the 2020 Elections" will also be useful. Of course it'll take me some time to integrate these new sources into the article.
Sure, take your time. I'll be happy to keep the review open upto 2 weeks, or longer if needed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on the As it became clear... sentence a bit? That's not from the P-S, it's just a lead sentence for the paragraph. The following sentence is the one the citation's for. Apocheir (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which source cites that opinion that national attention intensified? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, but I want to point out that there are some passages in the Kraus chapter that are suspiciously similar to the content of this Wikipedia article. Hmm...

I may have been unfair in dismissing a few local news sources, specifically WRVO and WSKG. I thought they just published wire articles on this, but they did appear to do at least some original reporting on this topic. I think including them will address the issue with the Post-Standard more than the Kraus chapter, although I'll continue to work that in as well. -Apocheir (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So either we have copied Kraus (or worse, Kraus has copied us). Can you clarify what is similar? Otherwise, I think you have done an impressive work on incorporating other sources. Though the number of Post Standard citations remain almost same, I think I should give it a full review soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Kraus paper wasn't published until November last year, while the bulk of the page content was there in August. So we didn't copy Kraus :) Could be a coincidence. -Apocheir (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed

[edit]
  • In the 2018 House race in this district — pipe 'the' out of the link.
  • Many Trump-aligned Republicans — first mention of a person in the article warrants his full name
  • Legislators and activists of all political alignments proposed reforms in response to the events of this election. — Perhaps, "Many legislators" or "Various legislators"
  • of R+6 — casual readers might not be familiar with this.
  • Brindisi is a resident of Utica, and Tenney lives in New Hartford, a southern suburb of Utica — we were never introduced to these two politicians, thus we cannot identify them by their last name.
  • Tenney embraced Trump during her campaign — would "endorse" be a better word?
  • both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee — should be "both the Democratic and National Republican Congressional Committee"
  • and Politico — italics Politico
  • a nationwide blue wave — "a Democratic wave" would better serve casual readers
  • With 2 years — spell 'two'
  • for the controversy she attracted while in Congress — and what was that controversy?
  • her electoral failure in 2018 — "her defeat" would be less wordy
  • Due to COVID-19, — "Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,"
  • Still, she won handily, by a margin of 19.2% over Phillips. Phillips conceded the next day. — repetition of 'Phillips'
  • calling them divisive.[51][52][53][54][55] — WP:Citation overkill
  • of the first impeachment of Donald Trump — "of Trump's first impeachment"
  • until February 24th — remove 'th'
  • NY state government responses to the pandemic — NY? No need for abbreviation.
  • at a virtual — link not required
  • The Post-Standard should be italicized in the "Endorsements" sub-section
  • "The Post-Standard'" v. Syracuse Post-Standard — consistency needed

TBC – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these comments in changes to the article, although feel free to comment on my changes to the article. -Apocheir (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the Tenney campaign $1.9 million — missing 'raised'
  • Spending for both candidates was dwarfed by outside spending — do we mean 'drafted'?
  • The NRCC spent — what is NRCC? specify
  • top 10 — better spell ten
  • What is your approach to list "Federal politicians" in the endorsements section? That is, Gingrich is listed before Trump.
  • Due to COVID-19 precautions v. The COVID pandemic — COVID or COVID-19? consistency needed in multiple instances
  • Trump vocally opposed efforts to expand voting by mail — I know you are referring to Donald Trump, but better write it as "President Trump", as to avoid confusion between Trump or Trump Jr.
  • received disinformation robocalls — MOS:SOB
  • I think that the "Margin over time" table should not be hided. It is virtually the most interesting part of this election.
  • on the 23rd — should be "on November 23"
  • "an inspector of the opposite party shall write in ink upon the back of the ballot a memorandum of the ruling and objection." — [citation needed] immediately after the quote
  • Then, on December 1 — remove 'Then'
  • 11 of those were from — avoid starting a sentence by a quote
  • 1,500 of the affidavit ballots were rejected by Oneida County alone — same as above, there are multiple instances of similar issue.
  • The recount process was painstaking, examining individual ballots closely — according to whom?
  • The Trump family — can link
  • "emergency legal defense fund" — [citation needed] immediately after the quote
  • while leaving the possibility for the results of the review to be appealed — why emphasis?
  • Why are few candidates italicized in "Results" section?
  • "Notes" need citations
  • This election was widely considered a fiasco — well, it is true, but who considers it a "fiasco"?
  • The 2020 United States House of Representatives elections — do we have to specify/mention US?
  • The NY-22 seat — spell
  • None of the candidates participated in the Electoral College vote count — and none of the candidates could have participated in the Electoral College vote count. They could have participated in just the "joint session of the Congress to ascertain the electoral vote count"
  • the federal Department of Justice — why capitalized?
  • Specify what is 'DOJ'
  • ... and the abolition of the present system of political appointees in favor of permanent civil service positions.[196][193][198][200] — Wikipedia:Citation overkill
  • Similar lengthy and painstaking recounts — 'painstaking'? Regardless, why is 2000 United States presidential election in Florida missing? Those 537 votes literally had the power to change the president!

Images

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

That is it. Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few of these I still need to handle, but some responses so far:
  • do we mean 'drafted'? See the wiktionary entry for dwarf, verb sense 2.
  • What is your approach to list "Federal politicians" in the endorsements section? Alphabetical order by surname, but I'm willing to change it.
  • avoid starting a sentence by a quote I think you mean "number" here, not "quote"?
  • Why are few candidates italicized in "Results" section? The individual party lines are italicized, and the totals are in regular text (or bold for the winner). Other pages such as 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New York do the same.
  • who considers it a "fiasco"? The cited sources for that sentence use the term "fiasco". If that's not enough I can include synonyms like "debacle" and so on.
  • Few publishers/websites/media outlets like Fox News is linked, rest are not. Be consistent Generally I tried to link the first instance of the media source. This is what we generally do for wikilinks in text, but I can't find any guidance about what to do for references.
-Apocheir (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm encountering this IABot bug when trying to add archives for references. Purportedly it'll clear up on its own in a couple days. I want to wait for that before I address the MOS:REFLINK issue, in case it overwrites anything. Aside from those two, I believe I've dealt with all comments so far, either by edits or my responses above. If there is anything I have not addressed adequately, let me know. -Apocheir (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm now done with the work on the references as well. -Apocheir (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news! Thank you for all of your work on this. -Apocheir (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you too for writing on this unusual election! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_New_York%27s_22nd_congressional_district_election/GA1&oldid=1067298389"