Talk:Ross Perot 1992 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article and find it very comprehensive. Just a few comments:
There are some links that need disambiguation.[1] Done
I have added some {{citation needed}} tags where there are quotes without references. There are several places where quotes without direct referencing occurs. Done
The map does not should any counties in Alaska in green, although the text says Perot won several counties in Alaska.

Alaska has boroughs instead of counties, which are the equivalent. I just now noted this in the article to avoid confusion. For some reason, the creator of the map lumped all the boroughs together, but it remains consistent since the word "county" is used in the caption. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines in WP:Lead, the lead does not summarized the article (although I think the lead is very good.)

I assume you are referring to the quotes. I added the first quote because I felt it was the best overview of his political views, which are scattered throughout the article. I could not find a place for it in the body because it was so broad, which is why I placed it in the lead. The "short tempered" quote is directly related to criticism made in the body. As for summarization, the first paragraph explains the beginning of the campaign then follows with the draft efforts. After the campaign foci are listed in the next paragraph, the final paragraph touches on the fundraising aspect, the short frontrunner status, his opponents, his withdrawal, reentrance, the debates and finally an explanation of the end of the campaign on election day. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtzou (Talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that the lead is very good, but it doesn't fulfill the requirements of WP:Lead, one of the few stringent requirements of a GA article. Xtzou (Talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it is not in line with WP:Lead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Whole sections of he article are not mentioned in the lead, such as front runner status, the "Draft Perot" movement, the way large amounts of money was spent, unique elements of the campaign, the debates, his ballot success (winning whole counties, etc., (success that has not been approximated since by a third party candidate) while topics such as the the American "anger" (with the scare quotes) is mentioned in the lead but not elsewhere.

From WP:Lead, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Also, "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." And "This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text."

Perhaps what you are saying is that the article is overly long, and that much of it is not important to the story and is therefore not included in the lead? Xtzou (Talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voter anger is essential to the context of the article. The first paragraph of the "Initial campaign" explains how the electorate was angry at President Bush for reneging on his promise to not raise taxes. Following the comma, the grassroots efforts are mentioned, which is the draft effort. The second sentence of the third paragraph mentions that he was the frontrunner for a short time. The "large scale marketing" campaigns are mentioned in the first sentence, which was an essential element of the campaign. The debates are mentioned, as well as ballot access in all states, and the last sentence explains the significance of his third party run. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested on my talk page that the article could be sharped to some degree[2], as apparently a good portion of the article is not considered important enough include a line or two about in the lead per WP:Lead. You seemed to agree.[3] Am I misunderstanding you? Xtzou (Talk) 17:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the article can be improved slightly perhaps with more eyes as with all newly created articles, however I don't understand your criticism of the lead since the statement that "Whole sections of he article are not mentioned in the lead" is false.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can asked for a second opinion, or ask on the GAN talk more specifically what is considered an adequate lead. Would you be agreeable to either of these solutions? I am willing to learn that I am wrong. Xtzou (Talk) 18:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can change the lead, but I don't understand what exactly needs to be changed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is too concise. I don't feel that the lead summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD. See the review of at Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) at Talk:Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1 where the reviewer says the same thing, I am willing to get another point of view on this issue, but I am not comfortable passing the article with such a sparse lead. Xtzou (Talk) 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a downright brilliant article, and I'm passing it straight off the bat. I'd even suggest nominating for featured status - I'd strongly support it as is. Rebecca (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]