Jump to content

Talk:NJGov

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk17:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk20:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Red-tailed hawk (talk) and Theleekycauldron (talk). Nominated by Red-tailed hawk (talk) at 04:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Red-tailed hawk and Theleekycauldron: I think a double hook nomination works super well here and both articles are GTG as far as I can tell. Each user has provided a QPQ for their separate articles, Earwig looks good, and each article is new and long enough. Sourcing looks good too. I personally like ALT0, ALTd1, and ALTd3 the best but any hook with both links is good with me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official account of the State of New Jersey?

[edit]

It appears this isn’t really an official Twitter, but more of a New Jersey Democratic Party booster account. I did a quick skim and couldn’t find a single GOP retweet, but numerous appearances by Phil Murphy. If by official Twitter you mean an account controlled by the governor, then that should be indicated. Otherwise it feels like we are giving undue attention to what feels like a partisan marketing campaign. Thriley (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: any thoughts? I think it should be clear that the account is run by the governors office and does, from a few minutes glance, seem to be politically supportive of New Jersey Democrats and not Republicans. Thriley (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not political (or American), but do you have any sourcing for that? An official account doesn't need to be run by the Governor, and I've seen plenty of sources calling it the State's account. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two people that run it were employed by the governor: Axios. I would think that an “official account” would be run by the office of the governor. I think this should be more clearly stated. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: How would you implement that change in the article? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to detail the political nature of account. Detail the political affiliations and the exact role each person had. Pearl Gabel’s LinkedIn states that as Digital Director for the State of New Jersey her role was to “Oversee digital operations for New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, including video, photo, social media, website initiatives, and statewide campaigns. Grew millions of followers organically through bold, innovative content on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok that garnered international press and numerous awards.” Thriley (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, feel free to add that if you can get independent sourcing for it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:NJGov/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

Review meta comments

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.