2012 Republican Party presidential primaries was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 20, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:F315:2C8F:7CCA:9A9:7726 ( talk) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fantastic! Excellent work—it provides encyclopedic insights. Very appropriate for Wikipedia. It should go at the very end of the article, just after the current ending two map presentations, and before the "See also" section. It could be labeled "Final voting at convention roll call". Of course, there would be a legend (for candidates by color) and I would like to see the font smaller for the numbers in circles, and smaller circles. It will be a tremendous addition to a legendary article. To me, it makes a summation of the entire article. The legend could be to the right of SC, GA, and Florida. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ariostos, a legend would help. Do you favor the larger circles and font for the numbers as they are now? Or could they be smaller? Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Two years later, it is still a telling and great graphic; did it make it into the article herein? I'll look. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC) -- Ariostos (talk) did a great job!
I have made request for a new assessment for this articles status. It might not be ready for featured article status yet, but hopefully we will get to know what to do to bring it there in the process. I really think we owe it to us self and this article to keep going all the way, to bring the article into history and not just leave it when the news interest have gone. Personally I think we have done a really good job, but what need to be done as the finishing touch? Go to the assessment discussion and take part:
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wugapodes ( talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
On Hold for 7 days pending changes. Length may be extended depending on progress. All editors should be very proud of their work on such a comprehensive article. Wugapodes ( talk) 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hold Extended until 20 July pending changes to the article. Wugapodes ( talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Not Listed as the nominator appears to be inactive, the other editor I notified seems to be busy with other topics, and no changes have been made since the extension. An editor can always renominate, however I would strongly recommend addressing a number of these aspects before doing so. Wugapodes ( talk) 18:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
2012 Republican Party presidential primaries was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 20, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:F315:2C8F:7CCA:9A9:7726 ( talk) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fantastic! Excellent work—it provides encyclopedic insights. Very appropriate for Wikipedia. It should go at the very end of the article, just after the current ending two map presentations, and before the "See also" section. It could be labeled "Final voting at convention roll call". Of course, there would be a legend (for candidates by color) and I would like to see the font smaller for the numbers in circles, and smaller circles. It will be a tremendous addition to a legendary article. To me, it makes a summation of the entire article. The legend could be to the right of SC, GA, and Florida. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ariostos, a legend would help. Do you favor the larger circles and font for the numbers as they are now? Or could they be smaller? Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Two years later, it is still a telling and great graphic; did it make it into the article herein? I'll look. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC) -- Ariostos (talk) did a great job!
I have made request for a new assessment for this articles status. It might not be ready for featured article status yet, but hopefully we will get to know what to do to bring it there in the process. I really think we owe it to us self and this article to keep going all the way, to bring the article into history and not just leave it when the news interest have gone. Personally I think we have done a really good job, but what need to be done as the finishing touch? Go to the assessment discussion and take part:
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wugapodes ( talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
On Hold for 7 days pending changes. Length may be extended depending on progress. All editors should be very proud of their work on such a comprehensive article. Wugapodes ( talk) 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hold Extended until 20 July pending changes to the article. Wugapodes ( talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Not Listed as the nominator appears to be inactive, the other editor I notified seems to be busy with other topics, and no changes have been made since the extension. An editor can always renominate, however I would strongly recommend addressing a number of these aspects before doing so. Wugapodes ( talk) 18:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)