Talk:Tea Party-endorsed Christine O'Donnell wins Delaware Senate primary election

Review of revision 1094392 [Passed]

Revision 1094392 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:06, 15 September 2010 (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 1094392 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:06, 15 September 2010 (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.

NPOV issues

The final paragraph presents two NPOV issues:

• O'Donnell's victory, coupled with the recent defeat of Lisa Murkowski by Joe Miller in Alaska, represent electoral victories for the Tea Party movement... This sentence is misleading. It does not fairly represent the facts: the Tea Party movement has dozens of candidates and endorsees, very few of whom have prevailed in their respective campaigns. As a 'grassroots movement' the Tea Party has clearly failed supremely, being unable to convert even a tiny fraction of the Republican races in a non-presidential election year (when special interest groups are notably more successful than in presidential years.)
• An article by Frank Rich in the New York Times recently accused the Tea Party... Wikinews does not report speculation. It is not news, it is not verifiable fact, it is rumour mongering.

I strongly encourage the contributors to very quickly address these two issues. - Amgine | ^t 02:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How the movement presents itself

• Neither libertarianism nor constructionism are supported by the sources, so I took the cautious approach of deleting both words, and sighting the edit. An unreg user challenged 'constructionism', and I can't find that by a quick Google search either.
• In general, Wikinews should be cautious when interpreting or summarizing political rhetoric. I think we should aim to directly attribute such to either a reputable commentator or a party spokesperson.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• To find Tea Party references to constructionism, search for "activist judges" or "activist judiciary"; this is code for constructionism. - Amgine | ^t 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  <laughing> Top link for me from Google: http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/2010/08/activist-judges-how-to-get-rid-of-them/ - Amgine | ^t 20:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

{{editprotected}}

• Since this article was written a more recent and high quality photo of Ms. O'Donnell has become avaliable (File:Christine O'Donnell 2010.jpg). I propose that this photo be used in the article over the more poorer quality photo from 2006. User:Aaaccc (talk) 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not done, please read WN:ARCHIVE. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Since this article is archived, it can't be done. Wikinews, unlike Wikipedia, has a special policy regarding articles' protection in a historical perspective. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)