Talk:2008 United States presidential election/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I believe the article has more than enough references, it is written well, has many descriptive images, and should definitely be eligible for good article status.

Commencing review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
This will meet basic MoS once there is a section on the election controversies (not just a link to another WP article) and some of the footnotes are improved.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
This is a major article about a major subject. It cites not a single book that has been written about any of the candidates or the race. As time passes (and further works are published analysing the race, both in books and academic journals), the citation base will need to improve to maintain article quality. Even at this stage, however, some of the book-length analysis should be included. I will put together a few possible titles at the end of the review page.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Most major aspects are covered, however not with sufficient clarity for a non-US reader in particular. There are some areas of inappropriate level of detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Variable. Key sections on campaign issues - esp Iraq - are a long way from being nuetrual or adequate. Other text and data, such as some of the stuff on primaries, and the tables etc, are OK.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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:
This article is going to need a fair amount of work on the presentation side of things. i will keep it on hold for a while unless other editors take a different view. I will be back with specific comments over coming days. I will offline March 6 to 9 (Downunder time), which will give some time for editors to work, then will continue the process from there. If anyone is unhappy with that process, please drop in to my talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to fail this and clear it from the GA noms - nothing seems to be happening here to substantially revise right now, but good luck with this in future and I hope to see it back in the GA noms in due course! Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed editorial remarks or questions other than those matters above

Lead section

I have done some minor copyediting. Other questions include:
"consecutive quadrennial United States presidential election." Is "consecutive" redundant? Can these elections be anything other than consecutive?
"Outgoing incumbent Republican..." Is "incumbent" redundant? Can the outgoing President be anything other than incumbent?
I would welcome other comment on the distinction being made here, between "the campaign, and ...the general election campaign". While this appears to refer to the period before and after the selection of candidates by each party during the primaries, i would suggest that it is a distinction that should not be made, unless it is in order to make a specific point (eg. that campaign issues were significantly different between the two phases) for reasons that related to the choice of candidates itself.

Nominations

Article must maintain a worldwide view of the subject. Many countries do not have Presidential election systems, nor primaries as a process of preselection. The intro here must give a few pointers as to what the process is as the substance of the article gets underway. This can include cross links to other 'main articles' in WP, within the constraint that the article itself must be self-contained. This should be done before we then move to a level 3 heading for the Democratic race.
This section needs to begin with some text setting the scene for the emergence of nominees from each party. There must be a huge number of articles from the period 2006-early 2008 that speculated upon and analysed this process. Just a few sentences summarising the sort of discussion and analysis would be adequate. The material in the subsection "Before the primaries" relates to this, but it is patchy, and jumps from generalities in its first para, to some fund raising details in the second.
The previous point is highlighted by the candidates' gallery which is just plonked in without any sense of who these people were or how they came to be candidates.
The "Early primaries/caucuses" section must begin by mentioning which these were, and is deficient in regards to references. Those of us outside the USA have little idea about the sequence of these events. The comment that "Iowa is viewed as the state that jump-started Obama's campaign..." is a major analytical claim and must be sources.
Now that some time has passed, I am not sure whether it really matters that much what pollsters predicted versus what Clinton actually got in New Hampshire, but if it does, it needs a citation.

Super Tuesday subsection (Democrat)

The first para should be about Super Tuesday in general (a version of the current second para) - alternatively, there should be a general discussion of the sequence of primaries, and the special significance of Super Tuesday, in the intro to nominations, before we get into the Democratic nom process. I would prefer the latter, but other editors may have different views.
The whole section on the Democrat primary race lacks any substantive mention of the candidates other than Obama and Clinton. Edwards rates a mention, but there is no account of the process by which any other candidate either competed or why they were eliminated.
It may reflect the reality of the politics, but it seems strange that there is no mention of actual policy differences between the candidates during the primary phase. I also recall a lot of talk (and not a few campaign boilovers) about the 'experience' issue, how each one would handle the foreign policy demands, what Clinton's connections with her husband meant for her role in the job etc. If the primaries are going to rate so many paras as they do, then there needs to be some recognition of these matters.

Republican nomination

This at least has the makings of an intro to the nomination in general, though there is less detail on the actual primaries. Same comments as for Democrats apply re how these people came to be the candidates, and on any policy substance. The Republican section is better o how candidates came to drop out in the course of the contest.

More later.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the primaries (Republican)

In the context of analysing the election campaign, it is of no consequence how much Rep. Paul managed to raise in a day, even if it was a record. That info should just be on his bio page I think.
What this section should have is material on who was in the running and why, and what the general view was about prospects.
There should be something on reasons for Romney and Giuliani dropping out - my recollection is that they were seen as serious contenders who dipped out early.

Campaign issues - Iraq

The biggest issue of the early campaign - but no citations. I suggest this section should have at least as much detail as the Change vs experience and The economy sections. Current text has serious POV problems as well.

General Campaign Expense Summary

This should be a table

Interpretive maps

These should be broken up and have substantive text using them to illustrate important points about the results. What did commentators say about urban / rural, north east / midwest / whatever splits etc etc. I think the cartogram and voter shift maps could be attached to some particularly interesting analysis.
The voter demographics table is very disruptive to the article. Unless the data within it is being used to support the substantive analytical text, editors might want to debate omitting it.

That's it for now. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points

There should be a summary of "election controversies" under that heading - the fact that there is a main article devoted to the topic doesn't mean that there should be 'nothing' on this in the main article. There should be either a para on each of whatever might be regarded as crucial cases, or a para or two summariesing the type of issue that tended to a controversy during the campaign (eg. did they tend to be staffing controversies, or voter registration controversies, or campaign finance controversies, or something else?). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books that could be cited

At least some of these should be cited for GA

Books containing material by the candidates themselves

Barack Obama Vs. John Mccain, (voting records of the two candidates), Arc Manor, 2008
Change We Can Believe in, by Barack Obama, Three Rivers, 2008
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, by Barack Obama, Three Rivers, 2006
Faith of my Fathers, by John McCain, Random House, 1999

Books by third parties

The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso, Regnery, 2008
Third Term: Why George W. Bush (Loves) John McCain, by Paul Begala, Simon & Schuster, 2008
A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, by Shelby Steele, Free Press, 2007
McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, by Matt Welch, Palgrave Macmillan
The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him—and Why Independents Shouldn't, by Cliff Schecter, PoliPoint
Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, Anchor
"A LONG TIME COMING": The Inspiring, Combative 2008 Campaign and the Historic Election of Barack Obama, By Evan Thomas, PublicAffairs.
The Plan: Big Ideas for Change in America, By Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed, PublicAffairs
Obama's Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, By Robert Kuttner, Chelsea Green Publishing