Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010/archive1

United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have nominated this for PR because I hope to eventually bring it to FAC. I believe it is thorough and comprehensive, but if the reviewer feels it is lacking, I'd appreciate it if they could identify areas for me where they feel there is a need for improvement. Also, of course, a good look at the prose would be appreciated. (If I've nominated this in the wrong category, my apologies, feel free to move it.) Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

• Chris Matthews speculation
  • Given that he ultimately did not stand, is it worth having such a large section for Matthews? The first and second paragraphs could be squeezed a little.
• Arlen Specter party switch
  • Some redundancies can be dropped in this section, e.g. drop "the Senator" in sentence two
  • "Some high-profile Democrats began encouraging Specter to join the Democratic Party, including Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who publicly offered to help Specter raise money if he switched." change to "Some high-profile Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, encouraged Specter to join the Democratic Party by publicly offering to help Specter raise money if he switched." for flow.
  • MOS:PERCENT advises the use of the % symbol "in articles where many percentages are reported", which I would consider this article to be given the number of opinion polls reported throughout. However, they're fairly spaced out so it's your call on whether you want to use it or spell out percent.
  • "Although Specter said his decision was made primarily based on principle, he also admitted it was partially due to his poor chances at winning the Republican primary:" There's something about the first clause that doesn't sit right. I think it's "made primarily based on principle". How about "Although Specter said he primarily based his decision on principle..." or "Although Specter said the primary basis of his decision was principle..."?
  • "Many major Democrats praised Specter's decision and promised to campaign for him, including President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid." I think Specter's switch needs to be foregrounded as much as possible, particularly as this is the top of a paragraph. How about "Specter's decision was praised by many major Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who promised to campaign for him."?
  • "Specter defended his position by arguing the Republican party had[...]" Capital P on Party.
• Joe Sestak declares candidacy
  • "U.S Representative Joe Sestak, a former United States Navy admiral and second-term Congressman[...]". Since Representatives are colloquially the "Congressman" this seems redundant. Why not just "Second-term U.S. Representative Jo Sestak, a former United States [or just "U.S." again] navy admiral, began[...]"?
  • "Sestak insisted he would not make a final decision for several months, but on May 4 met with Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which fueled speculation that he was seeking labor support for a campaign." The "but" conjunction doesn't really work; Sestak's meeting wasn't a final decision, it was a meeting that "fueled speculation". Put a full stop after "months" and start the meeting as a new sentence?
  • "On May 27, the website Talking Points Memo posted a handwritten letter by Sestak to candidates declaring he intended to run for Senate." > "declaring his intent[ion] to".
• Candidates: Is there any info on when the other two candidates entered the race; it seems strange to only have their dropout dates.
• Campaign
  • "Both candidates started the campaign relatively well-funded, although Arlen Specter maintained the strongest financial advantage." Relative to what or who?
  • "The New York Times suggested [...]" Better to say "[author] of NYT..."; referring to the publication as a single entity is best used only when citing editorials.
  • The whole Early months section reads like a bitch fight. Rather than presenting it chronologically, it might be better to organise the attacks by side, or just summarise the opponents' key topics.
  • The first sentence of the Toomey/Obama section appears to end before it ends. Is something missing?
  • "Sestak argued a change in leadership was necessary and claimed his military background as a United States Navy admiral gave him the necessary qualifications." "experience" would be better than "qualifications" given how the source refers to the debate.
  • "Also in September, Barack Obama appeared in a 30-second television ad for Specter, praising him for his support of the President's economic recovery initiatives." The "also" makes this sound like it was shoehorned in. Can it go anywhere else or does it have to stay at all?
  • "On September 15, Obama attended a Philadelphia fundraising dinner for Specter, an unusually public declaration of support so early in the primary season, when the President typically maintains a more neutral position until the final outcome becomes clearer." The LAT article just states that Obama had the option of staying neutral.
  • Television advertisements: Did the Sestak camp remove the adverts?
• Sestak gains in closing weeks
  • Suppose I've been living under a rock; who is Sarah Palin?
  • "The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also endorsed Specter, focusing more on the fact that Specter stands the best chance of defeated Pat Toomey in a general election challenge." "stood the best chance of defeating".

Bradley0110 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the review! — Hunter Kahn 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)