Talk:Jim Gilmore 2008 presidential campaign

Jim Gilmore 2008 presidential campaign 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 15, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Politics Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aftermath section

These dates make no sense. How could he make an announcement in 2007 "after" his 2008 campaign? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign did not take place in 2008, it was for the 2008 presidential election. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
You might want to add "Iowa" after "Des Moines", I mean I know where the city is located, but how 'bout your reader. In the Campaign developments, "...Gilmore made the assessment that when Iraq was invaded the president probably didn't think American troops would be trying to control the streets" ---> "...Gilmore made the assessment that when Iraq was invaded the president probably did not think American troops would be trying to control the streets", per here. Same section, "...American is "going to end up with a major war", is "American" suppose to be "America"? Same section, "...Gilmore stated that saw no problems with it", add "he" between "that" and "saw".
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Throughout the article, link "energy independent", "Tucker", "This Week", and "George Allen", to their correspondence articles. In addition, you might want to look at Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses for spacing throughout. In the Early stages section, "Washington Post" is supposed to be italicized, since it's a newspaper. Same section, "A Washington Post-ABC News Poll", I don't think the "P" in poll is supposed to be capitalized. In the Campaign developments section, "On the show, he criticized the credentials of Former Senator and potential candidate Fred Thompson of Tennessee", "Former" should not be capitalized.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
In the References, "National Liberty Journal", "Washington Post", "USA Today", "New York Times", and "Washington Times", need to be in the "work" format of the reference, not "publisher". Also, References 11 and 14 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here. In addition, there are two dead links.
Check.

B. 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):
Does Reference 20 cover all the info. in the Campaign staff section? Or is just the third paragraph in the section?
Check.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
In File:Jim Gilmore 2004 NSTAC.jpg, is he taking questions?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, just doing my job. Thank you to William S. Saturn for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919022028/http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3885945 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3885945

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001234336/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/3/101632.shtml?s=ic to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/3/101632.shtml?s=ic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]