Talk:2011 New Patriotic Party primary elections

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 New Patriotic Party primary elections article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2011 New Patriotic Party primary elections was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 11, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the Ghanaian 2011 New Patriotic Party Primaries, candidate Musa Superior canvassed for votes through Twitter and Facebook whilst living in the UK?

Africa: Ghana

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ghana.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Prepping for DYK

All in all I think the page is mostly ready for DYK. You need a citation for the information I added a citation needed tag too. Also, reference number 2 refers generally to the site, not a specific article. Please fix that, it makes that information Unverfiable Otherwise we are right where you need to be.

Now you have to pick an interesting piece of information and write a hook, which must be a cited piece of information from one of the sources, and the nominate it filling in one of the templates at Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_list_a_new_nomination. If you need help figuring all the details out, go ahead and check out this quick guide which is useful. If you would like I can write the nomination, other people can nominate articles for you. However, I think it is a relatively easy process and you should figure out how to use the templates like that at some point, similar templates are used for all kinds of different processes and procedures on Wikipedia, Sadads (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 New Patriotic Party Primaries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: User:Crosstemplejay
Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is fine, but there are too many lists, as discussed below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are significant problems here. The items linked are not what is most useful. For context, it would be useful to mention and link Politics of Ghana, Elections in Ghana, etc. The article links nationwide, which makes little sense, and parliament without specifying which parliament. It should link to the Ghanaian presidential election, 2012 article, etc. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) The categories are all inaccurate. The primary is not a party. See Wikipedia:Categorization There are lists which should be rewritten as text, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) The lede section should be a summary of each section in the article, and should not introduce new information, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). There is currently an orphan banner, which needs to be fixed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Much of the article seems plagiarized from http://news.myjoyonline.com/politics/201104/65056.asp and other articles. These should be used as sources, but not quoted verbatim.
	2b. 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).	Sourcing is okay, but not all contestable statements are sourced, and there are a few dead links.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	For an outsider unfamiliar with Ghana politics, little context is given with which to make sense of the article. Also, the aftermath is given only 3 sentences.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This is fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not enough context to determine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is fine.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid this does not pass our GA standards at this time. I would advice working on the items listed, and then nominating the article for peer review.