Talk:October 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election

Paul Ryan

In the article it states that Ryan is not running, but according on CNN and other sources that he is possibly considering so I think that it's not fair to rule him out. I think that the article should say: On October 9 however, Ryan showed possible intentions to run for the seat after all. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

The article listed him as a Democrat. But he said in an August 2015 blog post that he leans toward Republican but is not currently interested in either party: "And btw, I know a lot of the same can be said about the Democrats, but I don't want to be a Democrat," he concluded. "Until things change, I'll sit in the middle and think for myself. Unlike the Republicans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanglusva (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Paul Ryan officially nominated

The House Republican Conference officially nominated Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House. [1] David O. Johnson (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's already reflected in the article. But it's a non-binding vote and tomorrow will demonstrate whether or not the Freedom Caucus will fall in line. If CNN is correct and Ryan received 200 votes, he needs some of those Webster votes tomorrow to make a majority of 218 and who knows if they'll actually cooperate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to add

This. I think this article has GA potential. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, October 2015/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have decided to take this article up to be reviewed for Good Article Status. Review underway.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Posting the criteria from the Good Articles place:

</noinclude>

A good article is—

1. Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes from GA criteria

-Mr. Guye (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Review

I will bring up my concerns as I find them. Firstly, I notice that two links are dead: The Star Tribune article "Zinke says he is considering running for House speaker" (number 53) and the ipr article "Texas conservative Jeb Hensarling won't run for House Speaker" (number 89) are both dead. These need to be fixed.--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Stability  Confirmed. No edit war or content dispute ongoing. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

N Uh-oh. The link of which John Boehner's photo cites as its source now redirects and lands in a 404. This might become a problem per criteria 2d and 6a. Can this be fixed, or is this not a big deal? --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Not a major concern, still attributed. Photo can be found.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Webster is a member of the Republican Party. Is referring to him as a "third-party" candidate in the infobox warranted?--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Decision

This article is very thoroughly sourced. It appears to be neutral and broad in its coverage and so on. The only real concern I have is the Webster third party issue, but that is more of an infobox issue. I am in opposition to any promotion to WP:FA status without fixing this infobox issue. But I believe that this article does deserve the good article status. I hereby ✓ Pass this article as a good article.---Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:October 2023 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)