Talk:Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley declares bid for 2024 US presidential election

First Asian American ambiguity

I saw a few issues here. One of the sentences was worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as "Haley would be the first Asian-American governor of a US state," but that was Gary Locke. I took it out for now. Was it supposed to be the first female Asian American governor? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was, thank you. Heavy Water (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

'Major'

Hey, Heavy Water. My "don't disown" comment applied to this:

Haley, also a former US ambassador to the United Nations under then-President Donald Trump, would be the first 'major' primary opponent to her one-time employer.

If you are quoting a source directly, then you are indeed correct that these would be single quotes but only if there are double quotes around them somewhere, and I don't see any.

It sounds like you don't want other people to work on this draft at this time. Have you considered using the {{editing}} tag? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"But only if there are double quotes around them somewhere": you are referring to the instances when we quote sources' quotation-enclosed words?

I am fine with other people working on it, as long as they are preserving the style guide and style preferences. My edit summary ("You may note the developing tag and thus understand that I have not yet arranged this in WN:PYRAMID") was directed at anyone wondering why it was in such a poor arrangement. Heavy Water (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. So that's nto what you're talking about?

You say you used single quotation marks because you're quoting someone, but I don't see whom you're quoting. The sentence appears to be in Wikinews' own voice.

If there is some rule I haven't heard of that says it's okay to use single quotes to disown words—or do something else to them—then I'd sure like to see a source on that, like a Purdue Owl page, because that is something I would like to know about. I have a copy of AMA 11th here on my desk but not AP or Economist. All the style guides I've read have said not to do that, but the rules of English do change over time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just clarifying. It's quoting CBC.ca: "Nikki Haley...[middle of sentence], becoming the first major challenger to former president Donald Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination." Other sources also used "major" though not in a similar order to the sentence in this article. Heavy Water (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like only CBC referred to Haley as a "major" contender. ABC News and Politico both refer to her as the first GOP candidate to vie for the presidency after Trump. This doesn't seem to be exactly true. Data from the Federal Elections Commission show there's several other people running for the presidency as Republicans, at least those who are actively collecting campaign money (not that they'll be successful). It's probably for the best to simply avoid the usage and avoid even something of an opinion. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 23:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, major outlets tend to skip over those people. The avoidance does sound better. Heavy Water (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Big questions around what has and what ought to be included, and how that's included.

1. Two articles used are Politico analyses, e.g. they're written to analyse narratives. That's fine when the headline's something debatable, and analysable like "Why Nikki Haley shouldn't be counted out just yet", and they lend an interesting perspective when quoted gingerly (e.g. "Journalist Smith considers xyz in their article") but they shouldn't be synthesised with the same wholeness that the other sources are. Otherwise, we end up with an article that, even when explicitly NPOV, includes some less-important details that unfairly prevaricate one toward an unobjective conclusion.
2. Obscure titbits and skirting inverse-pyramid format lends the impression some details are blown up, and others shrunk. The last three paragraphs are about one 'scandal' that could be summarised as "After a disagreement over whether to impose further sanctions on Russia, Haley resigned" (or something more nuanced and accurate). "Haley denounced"...when? "While she has never lost a race"...and? Why does that matter? It's relevant she's aged 51, but why the year she was born, and her birth name? Mind, these can be incorporated, but consider what's actually relevant, and how to artfully position them in the story (like compound sentences!—the 51-year old compared her age to those of her opponents, 76-year-old Trump and 80-year-old Biden: "America is not past our prime [...] It’s just that our politicians are past theirs".)

JJLiu112 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. I do not like citing opinion, but I drew them in for small details about these events the other sources omitted. Heavy Water (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realise, thanks for clarifying! JJLiu112 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Review - nearly stale

@Chaetodipus: Would you have the time to review this before it goes stale on Tuesday? I can handle the rest of the queue. Thank you, Heavy Water (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I should have just enough time today to get through it. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Great! Heavy Water (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4710686 [Passed]

Revision 4710686 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for writing this article! Some reorganization of information was done to keep the campaign as the focus near the top. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4710686 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for writing this article! Some reorganization of information was done to keep the campaign as the focus near the top. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Chaetodipus: Thanks! Admittedly not my best work because of reviewing preoccupations this week, but still glad we're keeping up with presidential election coverage. Heavy Water (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)