Wikipedia:Peer review/Superdelegate/archive1

Superdelegate

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm concerned that this page has changed too much in the last few months and is starting to lose it's NPOV and to "lean" more and more toward the Obama Campaign's "outlook" on Super Delegates. For example, the entire discussion of how Super Delegates were created after the McGovern loss in 1972 has, apparently, been removed. And, the pending request to move this article to "Unpledged Delegates" seems a bit strange in light of the current debate going on about Super Delegates.

Thanks, DemocratNanny (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JamesMLane

The article summarizes the history of the rule -- correctly stating, with citation to a reliable source, that the superdelegate rule was adopted after the 1980 election, not after the 1972 election. The section on "Criticism" presents the criticism poorly and presents the other side not at all, so both aspects should be improved. One problem is that it's easier to find quotable spokespersons attacking the rule. People who side with the status quo, on any issue, tend to be less vocal. If you have information that will counter what you perceive as a "lean", by all means add it.

I will definitely try to learn enough about Wikipedia's intricacies to add information. And, I stand corrected. The Democratic Party did add Super Delegates in 1980 but one of the biggest reasons for doing so was as a "safety valve" to prevent McGovern type disasters. My concern with editing this and other articles related to the 2008 election (and specifically to the Obama - Clinton battle) is that, while I realize Wikipedia is an open community, I don't have the time or resources to sit around and have "edit wars" with Obama supporters who seem to be the ones altering these articles for political gain. I assume that this has been the case because the Obama supporters tend to be younger and more tech savvy than are the Clinton folks. But, all the same, I would hate to see Wikipedia used to push an agenda. DemocratNanny (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]