Wikipedia:Peer review/Democratic Party (United States)/archive1

Democratic Party (United States)

I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve this article. I hope it gets to featured article status but I need to know what the major things to be worked on are. --Revolución (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, from top to bottom (keep in mind I'm only commenting on FA criteria and likely opposes, not on POV copyediting etc.):

You're going to need a three paragraph intro for a article that huge - see WP:LEAD
Infobox - "International affiliation" - just keep it at "none" - make a FOOTNOTE if you must, otherwise it extends the infobox too much
"Issue positions, principles, and values" - turn that list into prose - there's no need for it there...
"Factions of the Democratic Party" - again, no need for a list here
"Symbols" - compress the paragraphs together for easier reading
"History" - personal peeve is that the first image is a little big.... maybe trim down the size if you can. Not a big deal though.
"1980s-2000s" - this is like three times the size of the other subsections - split it up. Also try to trim the size of this in general if you can... if not its not a big deal.
"Prominent figures of the Democratic Party" - these lists are huge.... maybe seperate articles are in order
"State affiliates" - maybe merge this with "A note on style" or something.... its pretty small
"See also" - needs to be organized. See Autism#See also for a good example.
"References" - speaking of which there's like [Ref10] etc. in 1980's history. Subheaders here are annoying here also. Consider ref/note combo. You don't have to use that though.
"External links" - could use more decription of what they are

Hope that helps! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Revolución (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is good work on an inherently controversial subject. I agree with Ryan's comments, especially on using fewer bulleted lists. Might I also suggest that you move the history to a separate History of the United States Democratic Party, and replace it with a three or four paragraph summary. The current article is somewhat overwhelmed by the history section, and it means that there is too little room to discuss the party today. For instance, there is only a fairly short paragraph on the structure, organization, and funding of the party. I would also like to see more on who supports the party. What regional, socioeconomic, and racial groups are more likely to support the Democrats? The article also need some footnotes. The external link in the lead should be replaced by one, and the quotes in the Issues section should be sourced. - SimonP 15:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done many of the things Ryan recommended, but I'm still open to more comments. --Revolución (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Factions" are described twice, once under headings and once in a long bulleted list. The second list strikes me as more of a list of idealogical groups in the Democratic Party, rather than a list of factions. However, there are factions in this list too (African-Americans, Yellow Dog Demos). I suggest calling the second list "Idealogical Organizations in the Democratic Party" and limiting it to actual organizations, not groups or factions. Griot 15:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Griot[reply]

I would remove or rewrite this comment: "The most common hypothesis for why the Democrats lost was that the Republicans ran in opposition to gay rights and used state ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage to attract more so-called "values voters" to the polls." Its politically loaded, partial and listing Michael Moore's Stupid White Men as a reference is hardly giving this portion of the analysis the impartiality it needs to have. I would shore up the part about the Dems losing because they failed to distinguish themselves or deliver a concrete message- much more plausible explanations. I would say it is safer to mention this as one possible scenario, but hardly should it be considered "the most common hypothesis". Its basically saying that Democrats lost the 2004 election because most of the country is homophobic...that's borderline ad hominem.

This sentence "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792." is misleading as both parties (modern day Republicans and Democrats) have a claim on the original ideals espoused by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I would either add that the Republican party traces it's roots to that party as well or simply delete it. It is well documented and widely accepted that Jefferson was an adversary of an energetic and expansive government, and an advocate of greater power allocated to the states. Both of these ideologies are alive and well in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.--Incisive83 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]