Talk:George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
President Bush waves from the train outside of Bowling Green during his whistle-stop campaign.
President Bush waves from the train outside of Bowling Green during his whistle-stop campaign.

Created by Kavyansh.Singh (talk). Self-nominated at 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • I have to say, I am surprised this never existed until now! Date, length (very well done, FA nom incoming I predict?) and hook all OK. QPQ not needed as this is his first nomination. No close paraphrasing (beyond a few quotes). Picture is licenced fine. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it needs a little rephrasing. You cannot campaign IN whistle stop train tour; also there's no need to repeat 'train' twice. I suggest the following: ...he conducted a whistle stop tour on a train named "Spirit of America" That's also how I've tweaked it in the article's lead. Good luck! Leoseliv (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoseliv: and @The C of E: Sure, I have rephrased the hook as per your suggestions.

Focus of introduction[edit]

Hey everyone, I was planning on beginning to edit this article, especially the introduction, to follow the style and substance of more recent campaign articles like the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign or the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign articles. The introduction in both of these articles focuses solely on the campaign. But the second paragraph in this article is a biography of Bush and the third paragraph focuses on his presidency, not his campaign (It also has weasel words like 'hate'). I plan on changing these paragraphs. Appreciate any feedback. Thanks Pefrectionist (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pefrectionist Hi, and thanks for your comments. I decided to make the layout of this article somewhat similar to those of some FA related to the topic. Some of them are William Jennings Bryan 1896 presidential campaign, William McKinley 1896 presidential campaign and Ross Perot 1992 presidential campaign.
All three pages have biography in background and. I requested a user to suggest me some points (which can be seen at User talk:William S. Saturn#Regarding_an_article) and he said that the article has much background information, which is fine but other sections are less detailed. I tried to improve many mentioned points. I appreciate your comments, If you have any other information or concerns about the article, I suggest putting at Peer review page. It would be fine if other sections are made more detailed or background information in reduced.
Thanks
Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 01:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Comments likely by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first two three comments now: – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
  • Please see MOS:SMALLFONT and remove the small font from the infobox.
  • Receipts US$101,936,902[1] This figure does not appear anywhere in the article. Please include it somewhere.
  • Robert Mosbacher also appears in the infobox but not the article. As the fundraiser, I imagine there may be a need for a section on fundraising that includes both him and the grand total.
    • Done – not necessarily a separate section, but I mentioned him in the prose with campaign receipts. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That works. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review continued (Lead to Opponents) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • and his high approval ratings --> "and high approval ratings"
  • Early results of the New Hampshire primary favored Buchanan,[6] but the final results gave a victory to Bush.[7] Can we clarify this? You don't just mean those two first towns that vote a midnight, right? But this wasn't 2020 so they weren't waiting on the mail vote
    • Done – The early counting of votes favored Bush. Added this. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      By "early counting" are you meaning the exit polls? Because that's not an early count. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Muboshgu: By "early counting", I meant than initial count of votes on election night gave a lead to Buchanan over Bush, but Bush ultimately won. Just like Gore had been declared winner in Florida in 2000, but final results gave victory to Bush. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oof let's not talk about 2000 Florida, still too soon. Thanks for the clarification. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were speculation"
    • Done – It isn't clear what you wanted here, but I tried to rephrase. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A rephrase is what I wanted. "It was speculated" isn't great, but that may be more WP:FA territory. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arkansas governor Bill Clinton" and "Tennessee senator Al Gore" are not following MOS:JOBTITLES. You could write "Clinton, the governor of Arkansas, and Gore, the senator from Tennessee", potentially. There are other cases later in the article where you say "President Bush" or "Vice President Quayle" when it isn't necessary to.
  • the economy foundered We can be more explicit and say we went into a recession
  • independent third-party This is a bit of an oxymoron, as third party candidates are not independent. Perot was an independent in 1992 and Reform Party in 1996.
Background
  • Bush eagerly accepted the position and threw himself into campaigning for the Reagan-Bush ticket[21] Not supported by the source. The WaPo opinion source talks about how he became VP essentially by staying in the race until the end even when he couldn't win (like John Edwards in 2004) and a few of the reasons that Reagan was iffy on Bush. It does not say that he "eagerly" accepted it or anything about the campaigning
  • In 1987, Bush announced his presidential bid too colloquial, say campaign or candidacy rather than "bid"
  • During his term, he... Have to include his name in the first sentence of every paragraph
  • decided to help facilitate --> "facilitated"
  • His experience as a diplomat allowed him to re-construct the U.S. foreign policy.[34]"How so? The Foreign Affairs article does say how (at least in the part that was free for me to read), so build this out on what exactly Bush and Scowcroft did, or drop it if it's a bit off topic for the campaign article (As Carville said, "it's the economy, stupid)
  • Soviet Union linked in the third paragraph after it was linked in the first
  • GDP needs to be spelled out. START doesn't.
  • "Congressional Democrats" is not a proper noun, "Democrats" is but not the "congressional"
  • Bush's broken promise is often considered one of several important factors leading to his defeat.[42] Yes indeed, but this seems to be out of place in the "background" section. It may belong in "Aftermath", if that covers the hindsighting (haven't gotten there yet)
Preparing for a run
  • viewed Bush's foreign policy success positively "Success" is POV. Operation Desert Storm was a success, but I bet he had foreign policy failures too, just on a smaller scale
  • Democratic party the p does need to be capitalized
  • Was Ron Paul planning to run as a Libertarian or a Republican?
  • Don't need to give Buchanan's first name again in the last sentence
Republican presidential primaries
  • Apart from Buchanan --> "In addition to Buchanan"
  • "Early results" of NH issue I brought up in the lead section
  • Should say what platform Buchanan ran on (and probably the fundraising too) before talking about NH
  • Don't need Quayle's given name here
  • So Buchanan got up to 35% of the vote, and then trailed off? May need a little more explicit detail here. Which contests did he do well in? Was he particularly strong in any geographic area, or was he better in the early states and then faded? I know Buchanan didn't win any contests, but that should be made more clear here.
    • Reply – Yes, but I think that would be bit off-topic, as article primarily focuses on Bush's campaign. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Republican National Convention
  • This first paragraph is huge and should be split in at least two.
  • With the Republican National Convention approaching,... We should say when the convention is first, and/or provide a little more concrete info on time here
  • were forced to play --> "played"
  • By this time, independent candidate Ross Perot had dropped out of the race, and Bill Clinton had officially secured the Democratic nomination. These are the first mentions of Clinton and Perot in the body. They both need to be linked, and there needs to be more context on who they are. We can't mention Perot saying he won't run when the article hadn't yet mentioned that he might run
    • Reply – Well, I have mentioned about the opponent candidates in its own section. I feel that we should remove this sentence to avoid confusion. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • George W Bush suggested Dick Cheney as VP? Lol. What does Cheney have on Dubya? Not a point for you to do anything with.
    • Reply – When I first read it in the book, I too was surprised about Cheney as VP in 1992! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for given names in the sentence on delegates, or for Robert Teeter after the first mention. Teeter isn't linked in the body, only the infobox.
  • There is a need to source the delegate count sentence.
Opponents
  • Perhaps this should come before the Republican primary section, since Perot dropping out before resuming his campaign was important, and is mentioned before we get to this section. Maybe not, but there should be some way to make it flow a little more naturally
    • Reply – I feel it is fine where it is. Shifting it before the primary section would break the flow from Bush's campaign to that of his opponents'. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these one paragraph subsections should probably be two paragraphs
  • This is the second place in the article to mention that Cuomo and Jackson didn't run, so trim redundancy.
  • Remove the day of the week on the Arsenio appearance
  • Also a repeat mention of Clinton's convention bounce and Perot dropping out the same day as his acceptance speech
  • Larry King Live is a TV show and needs to be italicized
  • Rather than say "Draft Perot" with a link to draft (politics), since there's nothing needed about the term "Draft Perot", we can say that a friend started a draft movement with the linked term
  • House of Representatives linked twice
  • formed United We Stand to "influence the debate".[91] Need to say more about that organization, just a few words
    • Done – Added few more words, but not much detail as it would be offtopic Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semicolon before "meanwhile"
  • Why did Perot get (back) in the race in October?
    • Reply – "Perot re-entered the presidential race, with a desire to further explain his economic plans" Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign section – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August
  • Need a comma after Lakeland, and need to unpipe so people know what state it's in
  • Bush campaign denounced Clinton Do you mean Bush, or "The Bush campaign"?
  • During speeches, he... Is the "he" Bush?
September
  • Quayle v. Murphy Brown looks like the title of a SCOTUS case.
  • GOP value tests First use of "GOP", and some may not know what it means.
    • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there aren't any other uses of the acronym (outside of reference titles), and it could be an MOS:EASTEREGG for someone not knowing the term "Grand Old Party". Change it to "Republican" so as to not confuse. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unpipe Columbus, many states have a city with that name. I assumed it was Ohio before I checked.
  • He blamed Hollywood to mislead people regarding his views. "For misleading"?
  • I expected the line about the DOE and the quote introduced in that paragraph to be related, but they are not. What's the relevance of the DOE deferral to the campaign?
October
  • "Newspaper Endorsements" - lower case "e", as it's not a proper noun, and italicize the names of the newspapers
    • Done – I also did create a separate article on Newspaper endorsements a month ago. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • proposed for changing budget accounting I don't understand this
  • used advertisements --> "advertised"
  • Bush campaign promised across-the-board tax cuts and supported enterprise zones in cities. Also ungrammatical at the beginning of the sentence, and what are "enterprise zones"?
  • Link to carbon tax.
  • As advisor, --> "As an advisor"
  • October 6, 1992, I think the year is unnecessary
  • Great to see the fundraising in the body. Maybe move it up to where you talk about the TV and radio advertisements, separate it from the presidential transition appropriation
  • Move up Bush checking his watch next to his being criticized for his debate performance. The 1999 Jim Lehrer interview should probably also go to the "Aftermath"
  • As significant as the "Jack Kennedy" comparison was in 1988 (though not to the results), I don't think Gore's quip merits inclusion here.
Election day
  • I think keep the first paragraph in this section to the final Gallup poll and results, and then some of the talk about the state of the economy vs. Clinton's character should be moved to a different paragraph
  • Link Nebraska's 3rd congressional district
  • It was a popularly believed that needs a grammatical fix. White House Chief of Staff and one of Bush's re-election campaign managers James Baker does too.
Results
Aftermath
  • Add a little context on the note, at least saying that Bush left Clinton a note in the Oval Office before saying Clinton appreciated it, possibly mentioning that leaving these notes is a tradition
    • Done – Added a bit about Bush's generous letter. I guess it was't a tradition back then as I don't think Carter, Ford, Nixon or Johnson left a letter for their successor. Reagan was the first to do so, but I'm not sure.1 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm I had thought it was more of a tradition than that. The more you know... – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1999, Quayle announced a run for president against George W. Bush. Not exactly. They both ran for the same nomination, but this construction implies dubya was the incumbent.
  • Is there anything more we can add to the Bush/Clinton friendship? That is good aftermath.
    • Reply – Definitely as it is really a good aftermath, but I think that would be too far from the topic. I added some details on Bush's letter. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • The three notes do require citations

Overall, this article is well written and well sourced. I'll put it on hold for a week to allow for improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu – I think I have most of the major changes in these edits. I have replied to the concern about shifting the "Opponents" section. Would appreciate if you could review the changes and let me know if I missed anything major. Thanks for your review! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm giving it another read now. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, finishing the read now. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with leaving the "Opponents" section where it is. The only problem that I see is that the first mention of Clinton and Gore in the body don't give surnames and aren't linked, which happens in the "Republican National Convention" section, and then the full names without links are in the "Opponents" section. Fix that and give the article another sweep for MOS:SURNAME and MOS:JOBTITLES compliance and I think we're done. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: I tried fixing that by adding links and full names in RNC section. Also, I gave another sweep of MOS:SURNAME. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm happy to pass this as a GA. Congratulations! – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu – Thanks for promoting my first Good Article. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_H._W._Bush_1992_presidential_campaign&oldid=1207387627"