George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 12 June 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 25, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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
@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]
"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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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]
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?
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"?
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"
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
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.
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.1Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 12 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]
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]
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]