Talk:2020 United States presidential election: Trump, Sanders win New Hampshire primaries

Preliminary thought

• The lede should stand alone, without assuming the headline. Atm, though, the lede doesn't explain that these primaries are part of the US 2020 presidential election process, nor, indeed, what a primary is (which I suppose some international readers would not know).

--Pi zero (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit - this is (at least on the context of election coverage) fairly common knowledge though, so I wasn't sure if there were more details needed. Let me know if anything is still unclear --DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4546471 [Passed]

Revision 4546471 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Preferably, I'd have noticed-and-mentioned in my earlier remark that what caucuses are should also be explained. Not worth a separate revision cycle even if there were time for one at this point. Be wary of attribution on election results, btw; however, in this case there doesn't appear to be any significant difficulty. We need a more integrated approach to these sorts of headlines; most headlines should be sentences, which this is not. 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 4546471 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Preferably, I'd have noticed-and-mentioned in my earlier remark that what caucuses are should also be explained. Not worth a separate revision cycle even if there were time for one at this point. Be wary of attribution on election results, btw; however, in this case there doesn't appear to be any significant difficulty. We need a more integrated approach to these sorts of headlines; most headlines should be sentences, which this is not. 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.

• @DannyS712: Any chance you could tweak the phrasing of the lede so as not to suggest that "winning" implies a majority (at least in the case of Sanders)? I didn't think of a really simple way to do it, or I might have done it during review; but it does kind of bother me that saying Sanders "won" this time means something very different from saying he "won" in 2016. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'll try to think of a way to do it - something about pluralities... --DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Pi zero: - in Special:Diff/4546464, you wrote "distinctive phrase used in source" - I cannot find that phrase anywhere in the source? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Phrase "on the republican side" in the CNN source from February 2016. Straightforward, best to simply avoid (which I did). --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I added the phrase to provide a transition without being too close to the source used for that paragraph, and Special:Diff/4546042 I added it before I thought to use CNN. Just as a note. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to hear. --Pi zero (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)