Talk:U.S. Congress confirms electoral college vote for Trump presidency

I have embedded notes regarding which source supplied which facts in the source code. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4277539 [Not ready]

Revision 4277539 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See comments NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: OK....here're my thoughts: 1)This is an informative article (and most certainly as Newsworthy as they come!).....but: It lacks, somewhat, the tight, punchy, active voice news-style we tend to favor here. It meanders, pontificates and even lectures in places. I could honestly, however, let ALL THAT SQUEAK BY, if it weren't for..... 2)I can't, for the life of me find a source that verifies the 'One person, one vote' thing in the latter part of the article. If I missed it, my apologies! Please point it out to me, if so. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4277539 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See comments NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: OK....here're my thoughts: 1)This is an informative article (and most certainly as Newsworthy as they come!).....but: It lacks, somewhat, the tight, punchy, active voice news-style we tend to favor here. It meanders, pontificates and even lectures in places. I could honestly, however, let ALL THAT SQUEAK BY, if it weren't for..... 2)I can't, for the life of me find a source that verifies the 'One person, one vote' thing in the latter part of the article. If I missed it, my apologies! Please point it out to me, if so. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

...and to get downright technical:

This is the phrase that caused me to glitch: 'This is a common slogan among Americans who believe that the electoral college system should be replaced.' --Bddpaux (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can run down something more explicit, but in the meantime, out it comes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I admit I'm worried about this article. Bddpaux, with all the stuff that goes on in xyr life, might well not have time to get back to this today; I'm having trouble getting in reviews myself atm and might well not get to it today; and it's at the outer end of the range for possible freshness. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4277600 [Passed]

Revision 4277600 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well, this is on the finite edge of the stratosphere in terms of freshness (if not just a smidge beyond). I chuckled a bit, because even some of the 'lecturing' (don't mean that ugly) still remains, but given the EXTREME weirdness of this election's bally-hoo about 'popular' versus 'electoral college', I think some rambling was maybe warranted! A good and valuable contribution. Lots of sources (took a lot of time to step through, but was worth it). 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 4277600 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well, this is on the finite edge of the stratosphere in terms of freshness (if not just a smidge beyond). I chuckled a bit, because even some of the 'lecturing' (don't mean that ugly) still remains, but given the EXTREME weirdness of this election's bally-hoo about 'popular' versus 'electoral college', I think some rambling was maybe warranted! A good and valuable contribution. Lots of sources (took a lot of time to step through, but was worth it). 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.

I didn't want to complain while it was still under review, but the last time I wrote an article about the U.S. electoral college I got a comment to make sure I explained a bit about it in the future. International audiences and all that.

In your opinion, did the in-Wikicode notes about which source supplied which fact help the review process or did it just get in the way? I share Pi zero's concerns about freshness (and about people having real lives and other hobbies that prevent them from being constantly on the spot) and I'd like to do what I can to speed up the process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)