# Talk:David Duke 1988 presidential campaign

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Duke 1988 presidential campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I have contributed to some American presidential campaigns, and would be glad to review this one for GAN. Would be reviewing it soon. This is my first GA Review! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### General comments
#### Lead
#### Infobox
#### Campaign
Will continue with another set of comments when the above are fixed/replied. Overall, article lacks adequate information about his campaign from Populist Party, that is why I have not passed it in " Broadness" criteria. Consider reading some biography for the research. I am putting article on hold for the issues to be addressed. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for the review and I will get to fixing the problems as soon as possible. Jon698 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: I just made some edits fixing most of the problems you have with the article. Can you give me at one week to fix the rest? My library has a book about David Duke's presidential campaigns, but the library is closed for a week due to construction. Jon698 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Jon698: Thanks for your edits, here are a few more suggestions.
Hi @Jon698: Just a kind reminder for making the necessary changes. The Review is on hold. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Further comments  (Continuing with 1988 Democratic Primaries section)


### Additional comments
Although I feel that the current version of article doesn't meet the GA Criteria, especially 3a, but as it is my first review, I am requesting for a Second Review particularly for the Grammar part of the article. Also, let me know if I missed something. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping me whenever you address the issues! Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Kavyansh.Singh, I think your review here is quite thorough. The prose doesn't have to be perfect, just reasonably easy to understand, and only certain segments of the MOS are considered for GA status. However, I think your concern that the lead doesn't follow the body is a legitimate grounds to demand improvement before passing the article, since MOS:LEAD must be followed in GA articles. Some reviewers distinguish between comments to improve the article, which are encouraged, and those strictly necessary to pass the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Buidhe: Thanks for your comments. Indeed the review is quite thorough as I intended to cover as much as I can. Most of the prose is reasonably easy to understand, but my main suggestion remains to add as much information on the Populist nominee section as possible, considering books and biographies. The user has requested for a week or so to make the changes, so there's no issue putting the article on hold. Rest, most of my "Additional comments" are just suggestions. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Done I have fixed all of the problems you have with the article except for a few which I will explain. The reason the article does not mention Bush or Dukakis' views on Duke's campaign is because they either didn't care or wanted to ignore him. Bush wouldn't get involved with Duke until the 1989 special election Duke ran in. As for the Stephen Koczak part it is necessary to show how strongly against Duke the Oklahoma Senate was. BTW if you give me a day I will get the campaign finance section done. Jon698 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi@Jon698: I have added some "Awaiting" tags in for you to make changes in the article. And you should surely add more content including campaign finance section. Review is still on hold. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Okay so I have expanded the lead, expanded the description of Duke's two running mates, added the campaign finance section, I don't think there was an official campaign slogan, I added that the KKK was a white supremacist organization, and fixed the sentence structure problems you had.Jon698 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: BTW can you do the ""(Democratic Primaries)" should be written before presidential election as "1988 Democratic primaries" in Campaign field." part since I don't know what you are asking for. Also can you do the alt text since I don't know how to do that. Jon698 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Also the reason I did not do the "here are almost 7 paragraphs in this section, with few paragraphs only of 2-3 lines. Consider merging paragraphs to create 3-4 paragraphs overall." change is because I believe that all of those separate paragraphs are needed as they cover separate topics. Jon698 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Final assessment
It's been a long review, and I am passing this Good article nomination as significant changes have been made by the nominator from this version to this version. The article contains many major aspects of Duke's campaign and is longer than some other GA's on presidential campaigns. It is well cited using clippings (which made verifying very easy). This article seems to meet the criteria. Congratulation and thanks for your contribution. My last suggestion would be to submit this article at WP:GOCE/REQ to resolve any remaining issues with grammar and wording, to prevent future issues. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)