Talk:George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Minecrafter0271 (talk · contribs) 02:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is my review for the article George W. Bush 2000 Presidential Campaign
Article Overview
[edit]Lead
[edit]- "Impressive fundraising" seems a little biased, so I changed it to "high funds," to give this article a fair shot
Background
[edit]- I don't think you need to go into detail about Bush's candidacy with his father as adviser, but I like how it manages to flow into the background, so I will let it slide as I believe that it is a vital part of the section, but know that some people might not agree.
Announcement
[edit]- Needed an extra comma, which I added in, but no other issues.
Campaign Announcements 1999
[edit]June
[edit]- I find that this section focuses on fundraising only. Though this won't sway my decision, I think it might be beneficial if this section is expanded and includes stuff like public support and polls and stuff. Again, this won't sway my decision, but just something to bear in mind.
July
[edit]No major concerns over this section
August
[edit]- Similar problem as in the June section, in that it only explores one topic, a scandal. But then, seeing as this is a huge delay, I will let this one slide as well.
September
[edit]No major concerns over this section.
October
[edit]Once again, no major concerns over this section.
November
[edit]- Had a couple grammar issues that I fixed.
December
[edit]No major concerns over this section.
Campaign Developments 2000
[edit]January
[edit]- Good, except for a missing comma, which I added in.
February
[edit]I like how a ton of the subsections in this and the last section have no major concerns, and this is one of those ton.
March
[edit]- Good except for a grammar mistake, which I fixed.
April
[edit]- Really good. The subsection covers almost everything relevant, so hat's off to the editors.
May
[edit]- Relatively good, except it's missing stuff like polling and whatever.
Note that I do understand that it is hard to find this stuff since it happened a while ago, and I will take that into consideration as to whether or not to pass this article.
June
[edit]No major concerns over this subsection.
July
[edit]- I found this subsection particularly interesting, and I am so far happy with the article, but we have to see what will happen next.
August
[edit]- Good subsection
September
[edit]- The subsection covers all the relevant information and I applaud it for that.
October
[edit]- It's up to standards, performance wise.
November
[edit]- I liked it, but there is no mention of the electoral college vote, which would be useful to know. But it might be mentioned later, so I'll keep my eyes peeled.
Post Election Developments 2000
[edit]November
[edit]- I like how it didn't just say the results of the recount, but the whole process, and it didn't say the results because it wasn't finished, which is also an avoided error.
December
[edit]- Rather long subsection, but worth it for the in-depth explanation that is all nicely cited. Good job!
Final Comments
[edit]Though a rather long article, I am thoroughly impressed with the in-depth facts, and would not be surprised if it passes.
Criteria
[edit]| GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
|---|
|
|
Overall: |
 ·  ·  · 
|
I am happy to announce that the article George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign has met all the criteria necessary to be promoted to Good Article. Congratulations to everyone who helped this article reach this Milestone. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)