Talk:Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Bias in citation?

Hey, I just noticed that quite a few this article's citations are from a website run by him.Thought I'd point it out. 70.136.85.95 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because editors keep adding non-Notable endorsements using the campaign website as the source.--STX 04:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone on Realistic Plan for Iraq

"Arguably the most important issue for the upcoming election will be the Conflict in Iraq. Biden, unlike most candidates actually has a plan on this issue. He has established a five point plan on how to end the violence and get the American troops home:" The tone here strikes me as more commentarial than encyclopedic. --Evil1987 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it, sorry about that.--Southern Texas 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup, July 2007

I tagged this article with {{cleanup}}. It looks like the section & subsection titles need reformatting for capitalization and to remove boldface. Also, maybe a more experienced editor than myself could weigh in on the lists under Campaign focuses and Plan for Iraq. --Evil1987 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the capitalization (to the best of my knowledge) in the section and subsection headings. Apparently the boldface in the subsection headings is Wikipedia's, sorry for pointing that out in error; I don't know why it looked odd to me. --Evil1987 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Campaign Advisors

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bidenpresident.jpg

Image:Bidenpresident.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

The article has a lot of promise, but for several reasons, it fails good article review.

1. Prose-The lead section is too short for the length of the article and needs to include more content from the article body. The article wording might need some improvements, such as reducing wordiness and occasional inserts of opinion. I worked to address some of these concerns, but the article might need some more work in this matter.

2. Verifiable- Generally well sourced, but a few sources needed tags were added.

3. Coverage- I like the coverage, but I think the last section needs to be longer to sum up some of Biden's other policy positions. It doesn't need to be really long, maybe about twice as big as it is right now.

4. Neutral- Generally good. Esp. after a few fixes I did.

5. Stable check. 6. Images- check

Please help review other GA nominees at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Feel free to renominate the article when concerns are addressed. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Passes 1-6. All suggestions have for improvement have been meant. The article might need a check for NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves, but such errors in this area are minor.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)