Talk:Santorum neologism spreads to Romney

Note

The article includes some bits previously reviewed and sourced as background material from articles listed in the Related news sect. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1403884 [Not ready]

Revision 1403884 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Overall, there's over-emphasis on Santorum. The article has too much detail too early on details of the santorum neologism. Most of the over-lengthy first paragraph is about that, which is out of place as that isn't the focus (which is all the lede should be about). There should be some explanation of the santorum neologism in the lede, yes, but it should be far more succinct (one not-excessively-long sentence would probably be about right), and should be single-mindedly focused on communicating what the reader needs to know in order to fundamentally relate that situation to the phenomenon that is the focus of this article. More detail of the santorum neologism belongs further down, which I see is where some additional info about the santorum neologism occurs. Btw, some nod to Satorum's remarks about his neologism could be quite appropriate, I think. I doubt the suitability of the picture for this article. It's just artwork, by nobody in particular, and on the Santorum article I decided to allow such as was illustrating the grass-roots phenomenon that was the focus of the article — but this article is focused on a different phenomenon, leaving a very weak connection to grass-roots Santorum artwork. Reminder: spreadingsantorum.com was not set up to document the phenomenon, it was set up to cause the phenomenon. Too many sister links about the santorum neologism; since this article isn't focused on that, I'd say one sister link — to the Wikipedia article, surely, as one-stop shopping on the subject. A reader coming fresh to the story will fairly early want to know "why that definition?", and that question is not addressed nearly as soon as it seems it should be. It likely belongs in the second or third paragraph, and instead it's in the fifth. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1403884 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Overall, there's over-emphasis on Santorum. The article has too much detail too early on details of the santorum neologism. Most of the over-lengthy first paragraph is about that, which is out of place as that isn't the focus (which is all the lede should be about). There should be some explanation of the santorum neologism in the lede, yes, but it should be far more succinct (one not-excessively-long sentence would probably be about right), and should be single-mindedly focused on communicating what the reader needs to know in order to fundamentally relate that situation to the phenomenon that is the focus of this article. More detail of the santorum neologism belongs further down, which I see is where some additional info about the santorum neologism occurs. Btw, some nod to Satorum's remarks about his neologism could be quite appropriate, I think. I doubt the suitability of the picture for this article. It's just artwork, by nobody in particular, and on the Santorum article I decided to allow such as was illustrating the grass-roots phenomenon that was the focus of the article — but this article is focused on a different phenomenon, leaving a very weak connection to grass-roots Santorum artwork. Reminder: spreadingsantorum.com was not set up to document the phenomenon, it was set up to cause the phenomenon. Too many sister links about the santorum neologism; since this article isn't focused on that, I'd say one sister link — to the Wikipedia article, surely, as one-stop shopping on the subject. A reader coming fresh to the story will fairly early want to know "why that definition?", and that question is not addressed nearly as soon as it seems it should be. It likely belongs in the second or third paragraph, and instead it's in the fifth. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Reply

I agree with all of the suggestions by the reviewer, will begin to address this helpful advice soon. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to review

Artwork inspired by the santorum neologism phenomenon
Image: DonkeyHotey.

1. Removed emphasis on Santorum, removed a lot of stuff from the lede.
2. Removed early details on the santorum neologism. Trimmed size down significantly of first paragraph. Trimmed to one-sentence in the lede as descriptive background.
3. Moved more detail of the santorum neologism further down, with the other additional info about the santorum neologism.
4. Added some remarks by Santorum about his neologism, as suggested, above.
5. Removed the picture (see at right as it had originally appeared in the article), no objections. ;) (File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg)
6. Changed "document" to "promulgate", as was done with the prior article, no worries. ;)
7. Trimmed a bunch of the sister links. Kept 2 only, one to Wikipedia and one to Wiktionary, which as a sister site is very informative regarding the chronological progression of the phenomenon over time.
8. Moved the explanation of "why that definition?", up. As suggested by reviewer, moved it from the fifth paragraph, all the way up to the second paragraph.

Thanks very much for all of this advice and helpful input, I believe the article looks much better for it! -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1404050 [Passed]

Revision 1404050 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1404050 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.