Talk:1990 Nebraska gubernatorial election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 12:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one within a few days. Canadian Paul 12:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your taking the time to do this review, and I'm looking forward to your comments on the article.

I did a lot of the research in my local college library's bound copies of the Unicameral Update and microfilm copies of the Omaha World-Herald; unfortunately, this means that most of the citations are to sources that aren't available online. I photographed the pages of the UU and the screen of the microfilm reader, and saved the photos to my hard drive, so I've got most of these sources available. Should questions arise concerning these, I can check up on them, and quote excerpts from the articles as necessary. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: 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:
· · ·

Just a few comments for this one:

Under "Background", second paragraph: "Orr's popularity was further damaged by..." since this could be something reasonably challenged, it should be cited directly rather than among the several citations at the end of the paragraph.
Under "Candidates" (for the Democratic primary), first paragraph: "Attracted in part by Orr's perceived vulnerability..." Do the citations for each person state that they were attracted by this? Or is there a general citation that makes this claim? Because individuals often have different motivations for challenging the primaries regardless of the candidate's vulnerability, and we can't just assume that there were candidates for whom vulnerability was part of their decision to run.
Under "Newspaper endorsements,": "the Kearney Hub Boyle; and the North Platte Telegraph both Boyle and Hoppner." There's a missing word here, presumably "endorsed", but given the context, it could be several different things, so I thought I'd ask rather than fill it in.
Under "Results" (for the Republican primary), it is written both that "Orr had been expected to win easily, and did" and "Orr's poor performance", which to the average reader is going to seem contradictory. I get what is meant here (i.e. a relatively poor performance) but I think that this could be clarified a bit (it's a little clearer in the lead, for example), with perhaps the wording receiving direct citations since they could be challenged.
Under "Lieutenant governor" (for the Republican primary): "Orr's incumbent lieutenant governor, Bill Nichol, did not run for re-election." In terms of breadth of coverage, do we know why? Seems like an important detail (as it could, in theory, be related to, say, the viability of Orr's campaign) that a reader would want to know about.
In terms of the comment raised on the talk page, I do think that the article would be enhanced by images of the main contenders, but your rationale for not including them makes sense, so at least in terms of the GA Criteria, I think that the image one is satisfied in this case.

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 11:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting to this so quickly. I've addressed a few of your points tonight, and will get to the remaining one tomorrow.

Regarding #1, I've moved a citation so that it immediately follows the statement that you suggested might be subject to challenge. (I also noticed that it occured in a paragraph that treated two different subjects, which paragraph I've split.)

I'll have to put #2 on hold for a while, during which I'll go through my source stories. If I can't find a good source for the "Attracted in part..." phrase, I'll cut it.

Re. #3: Not a missing word—I used an elliptical construction so I wouldn't be repeating "endorsed...endorsed", or hunting for synonyms. I've just consulted a couple of grammar websites ([1][2]), which indicated that I ought to use commas in the place of the elided verbs; I've added the commas.

Regarding #4, I've tweaked the phrasing. The Robert Dorr story cited at the end of the sentence used the phrase "the unexpectedly heavy Sullivan vote", so I've rephrased it from "Orr's poor performance" to "Sullivan's unexpectedly high percentage". Everything in that sentence is supported by the Dorr story.

Regarding #5, I tried to find something on this while I was researching and writing the article, but couldn't. I didn't see anything about Nichol's decision not to run for re-election while going through months of microfilmed Omaha World-Heralds, even in the few articles that mentioned the lieutenant-gubernatorial race. As noted in a footnote, a Sioux City Journal obituary of Nichol erroneously states that he was defeated with Orr. A Scottsbluff Star-Herald obituary says nothing about why he didn't seek re-election. Those were the only decent sources on Nichol that I could find.

Again, thanks for your time, effort, and input. I'll try to address #2 tomorrow. Ammodramus (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through my sources, and I can't find anything that gives strong support to the "Attracted in part..." phrase. I suspect that I got it from this NYT story, cited elsewhere in the article, which includes "Those polling results are apparently one element that has encouraged several Democrats to weigh candidacies for the primaries..." The statement from the article seems much stronger than the NYT story, with its "apparently", can support; so I've removed it. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #3, I see it now, definitely a case of missing the forest for the trees on that one. Regarding Nichol, I still find it odd that no one mentioned anything, but I obviously cannot ask you to include information that isn't available. Since everything looks great now with the improvements, I'm going to go ahead and pass the article for GA. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 08:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Nichol, it might be possible to find that information, but it'd probably involve going through months of microfilmed World-Heralds, scanning for a relevant headline. My neck, back, and eyes can only take about two weeks' worth of microfilm at a sitting... The lieutenant governor has very little in the way of official duties, and there was almost nothing about the LG race in the papers that I consulted; so, unless there was something newsworthy about the circumstances, an incumbent LG's decision not to run for re-election would probably get about three paragraphs on page 9.

And thanks again for taking the time to do this review. I know that GARs can require a great deal of time and effort on the reviewer's part, and I appreciate your willingness to make that kind of committment to the improvement of the encyclopedia. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]