Talk:2014 Vermont gubernatorial election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 00:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed a gubernatorial election for GA before, but here it goes.

"The 2014 Vermont gubernatorial election took place on November 4, 2014, to elect the Governor of Vermont," - this is pretty redundant. There's no rule that says you need the article title bolded in the first sentence. Why not something simpler like "On November 4, 2014, an election took place to elect the Governor of Vermont." This is much more concise, just as true, and crisper.

That's the standard intro for all election articles, Congressional, Senate and gubernatorial.

I'm just saying it doesn't have to be, especially if you decide to take this article further. It's fine for GA status though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth saying in the lead that it occurred during a Republican wave? Republicans did very well across the country that night, leading to problems for Democrats in Maryland and Illinois (where they lost) and Virginia and Vermont (where they nearly lost unexpectedly).

It certainly is. Added.

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16

57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Incumbent Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin ran for re-election to a third term in office against Republican businessman Scott Milne, Libertarian businessman Dan Feliciano and several other minor party and independent candidates." - does this need to be its own paragraph? Also, why no comma after "Feliciano"? Was this an editor choice to avoid the oxford comma or not? If it's your choice to avoid the third comma, then that's fine, as it appears you do the same under the "Republican primary" section

Merged the second paragraph with the second. And you are correct, it was my choice not to use the Oxford comma.

"Shumlin was expected to win easily" - this should be prefaced by "Based on polling" to give more context (and also summarize the large polling sections later in the article)

Expanded.

" The Constitution of Vermont requires that the 180-member Vermont General Assembly choose the winner when no candidate receives over 50% of the popular vote.[1] On January 8, 2015,[2] the Assembly chose Shumlin over Milne by a vote of 110 to 69" - 110+69 = 179. Since you make a point to include the size of the GA, I think you should include that one person didn't vote.

Done.

"Shumlin won the Assembly vote 145 to 28, with 7 legislators not voting." - source?

Added.

"Shumlin was re-elected in 2012 against Republican State Senator and former Vermont Auditor of Accounts Randy Brock by a landslide, 58% to 37.7%." - ditto

Added.

"He faced one opponent in the Democratic primary: lifelong Republican and Washington, D.C. resident H. Brooke Paige, who simultaneously ran against Democratic incumbent William Sorrell in the Democratic primary election for Vermont Attorney General. He was also unsuccessful in that effort, losing by 80% to 20%." - again, source? Also, you start two consecutive sentences with "He", but they apparently have two different antecedents. Perhaps change the latter to "Paige"? Also, how come you don't talk about the Democratic primary in prose? When was it held? How does one get on the ballot?

Changed; sources and date added.

When was the Republican primary?

August 26; date and reference added.

"But the party openly admitted that it lacked the money to run a gubernatorial campaign" - don't start a sentence with "But". Ditto later with "But after the election"

Those sentences used to start with "however", but were changed by another editor. Changed back.

The sections for "Progressive", "Liberty Union", and "Libertarian" could all probably be merged to an "Other parties" section, as they all have less than two candidates. It's better to write the information out in prose than having needless tables with minimal information in it. It would also be good to flesh out the "Independent" section (and perhaps have that included in such a larger section).

I would disagree, they're all separate parties so they should all have separate sections for their primaries. There's really not much more info on the independents. They're all fringe candidates who don't get much attention (beyond their appearances at the debates).

That's fine, it was just a thought I had, speaking as an outsider. I trust you know how to handle election articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional debates among the candidates were held" - when, and how many? You mention the one on 10/29, so I'm curious.

There were at least two more, but sources contradict each other as to the number and the dates they were held on. Some of the sources conflated two of the larger debates when compiling "best of" clips of the debates and just referred to "the debate".

I'm sure there was probably a debate in the media what constituted a "debate" - it's not like it's a presidential debate where it's officially sanctioned by both parties and it's televised to millions, so that makes total sense, thank you. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The result came as a shock to most observers" - seems a bit unencyclopediac. Perhaps - "The result was unexpected to most observers"?

Done.

"and with the bungled roll-out of Vermont Health Connect" - that seems a bit biased. Try rewording to be a bit broader

Changed to "unsuccessful".

"and the $100m budget gap" - why write the number this way?

Not sure how else it could be written other than "the one hundred million dollar budget gap", which seems unnecessarily wordy.

"by "acknowledg[ing] the result and com[ing] back [to] fight another day" - that's a bit too much reinterpreting a quote

The actual quote is "acknowledge the result and come back and fight another day", so changed the wording prior to the quote and included it whole.

"He did not rule out running again in 2016." - this is a bit odd putting at the end of "General Assembly vote", considering it's the first thing that's discussed in "Aftermath"

"He" meaning Milne. Corrected.

All in all a pretty good election article. Hope my comments aren't too hard to address, and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Have either made the changes or responded to the suggestions. Tiller54 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing now, good work! Just 35 more state gubernatorial elections to do (and three territories) to finish 2014 :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! My first GA :D Just out of curiosity, how far away would you say it is from FA status? Ah, I wish I could finish the others. I changed jobs recently so I barely have time to edit any more. :( Tiller54 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]