Talk:Ralph Nader: Obama will likely face challenge in Democratic primaries

International audience

The article checks out okay - all the facts are correct, writing is good, etc. However, I think the concept of a "primary" needs to be explained to an international audience; to me, for example, they are an almost alien concept. (I do get the general idea, but mainly through trying to understand it for WN stuff in the past.)

Once that's added, another USian could probably review it without additional sourcing, since I'd hazard that such would qualify as 'common knowledge' within the US. I've checked all the facts quite carefuly and I'm willing to say this passes on verifiability, so there's no need for anyone to recheck that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to the primary election article on wikipedia. After that I added the statement "which are held to determine the party's presidential nominee." I think that should clarify it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1268672 [Passed]

Revision 1268672 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Though I was hoping an Amerikan would double-check this, after some consideration I'm passing it myself because this matches what I thought the process was, and because various places seem to agree. As is my custom, I'll explain a couple other decisions made in passing this (which makes for a looong comment, but hey). The first is a sourcing contradiction; has Nader stood four times or five? I decided four held more weight as they had clearly done their research, listing the years. The second is using the odd word 'primaries' in the title. I decided that was fine, because it is clearly explained early in the article. In short, everything looks good. 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 1268672 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Though I was hoping an Amerikan would double-check this, after some consideration I'm passing it myself because this matches what I thought the process was, and because various places seem to agree. As is my custom, I'll explain a couple other decisions made in passing this (which makes for a looong comment, but hey). The first is a sourcing contradiction; has Nader stood four times or five? I decided four held more weight as they had clearly done their research, listing the years. The second is using the odd word 'primaries' in the title. I decided that was fine, because it is clearly explained early in the article. In short, everything looks good. 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.