Talk:Elizabeth Warren endorses Joe Biden in 2020 US presidential election

Length

@Ixfd64: can you expand this a bit? It is supposed to be at least three paragraphs. If you don't have time or want me to try and add to it, I can, but since you're the author I thought I should run it by you first --DannyS712 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph is also too long, with too much detail in it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I've made some changes. Your feedback would be much appreciated. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The article length is better. The lede is still much too long and too detailed. Note that shortening the lede is not (necessarily) about removing information from the article; it's about what belongs in the lede and what should be in some later paragraph in the inverted pyramid. --Pi zero (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4559630 [Passed]

Revision 4559630 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The sentence about Warren having been considered a top candidate is a clear case of analysis, breaching our neutrality policy; it presents a subjective judgement rather that providing concrete facts that would inform the reader and allow them to make their own assessment —things like, Warren was in the debates, Warren won some delegates, or even Warren was polling well at some point— and, on careful consideration, it's evading responsibility by presenting the assessment as an anonymous, "everybody knows this" sort of thing. This is really quite short, pretty much on the knife edge of our minimal-size criterion. I'd suggest aiming for just a bit more in a minimal article, going forward. 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 4559630 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The sentence about Warren having been considered a top candidate is a clear case of analysis, breaching our neutrality policy; it presents a subjective judgement rather that providing concrete facts that would inform the reader and allow them to make their own assessment —things like, Warren was in the debates, Warren won some delegates, or even Warren was polling well at some point— and, on careful consideration, it's evading responsibility by presenting the assessment as an anonymous, "everybody knows this" sort of thing. This is really quite short, pretty much on the knife edge of our minimal-size criterion. I'd suggest aiming for just a bit more in a minimal article, going forward. 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.

Yeah, I wanted to replace the first part with "Some considered Warren a top candidate [...]" but couldn't find any information in the sources on who "some" was. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Updates

Can this be added using {{Update}} to Bloomberg, Warren end US presidential campaigns following Super Tuesday? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}} "she was was endorsing" -> "she was endorsing". Minorax (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

...though you should have been able to edit the article yourself --DannyS712 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Ah. Misread the log. Thanks anyway :) Minorax (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Drat. I can't believe I missed the opportunity to use the edit summary: "unlike the intended 'was', 'was was' was used". c.f. w:James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher --DannyS712 (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)