Talk:US state of Wisconsin holds 2020 election amidst COVID-19 concerns

Notes

• Not just the presidential primary, but also the state general election
• May be added as sources (once the voting gets underway, more news will emerge, and some of it may cover these, so the primary sources may not be needed):
  • https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EO074-SuspendingInPersonVotingAndSpecialSession2.pdf - executive order itself
  • https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/conley_order_-_20200402.pdf - April 2 order in district court
  • https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf - SCOTUS per curium decision on the application for a stay
  • https://www.wicourts.gov/news/docs/2020AP608.pdf and https://www.wicourts.gov/news/docs/2020AP608_2.pdf - Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings

--DannyS712 (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Headline

This article needs a better headline.
•–• 09:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestions? --DannyS712 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To begin with, think of the global audience. What will they think of it? For example: "What the heck is Wisconsin?"
•–• 13:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that this needs a better headline. My question was if you have any suggestions for a better headline. --DannyS712 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"US state of Wisconsin [...]"? Not as compact as "Wisconsin, US [...]" but more explanatory, and they're short words as long as one says "US" rather than "United States". --Pi zero (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the constructive suggestions Pi zero --DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4557542 [Not ready]

Revision 4557542 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Afaict the extension of absentee voting was not part of the executive order, but was a separate thing that came from the courts. Although I cut one passage that was consequently unverifiable, there is a whole bunch more, and it didn't seem right to just cut it all. (I'm continuing with fact-checking, but wanted to flag out that problem immediately.) 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 4557542 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Afaict the extension of absentee voting was not part of the executive order, but was a separate thing that came from the courts. Although I cut one passage that was consequently unverifiable, there is a whole bunch more, and it didn't seem right to just cut it all. (I'm continuing with fact-checking, but wanted to flag out that problem immediately.) 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.

• I also doubt the word "later", which occurs in the sentence about the US Supreme Court. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  I fixed which order it was. Later is indeed correct: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics/wisconsin-primary-election/index.html - "The state Supreme Court on Monday evening ... Shortly afterward, the US Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling..." --DannyS712 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4557562 [Passed]

Revision 4557562 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Do not distance from source, as a reporter, by replacing some individual words. It does not avoid accusations of plagiary, and is bad practice. The reporter doesn't have the non-involvement constraints of reviewers to worry about, and should cause these sorts of too-close spots to totally disappear by fundamentally altering the structure of how things are said. 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 4557562 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Do not distance from source, as a reporter, by replacing some individual words. It does not avoid accusations of plagiary, and is bad practice. The reporter doesn't have the non-involvement constraints of reviewers to worry about, and should cause these sorts of too-close spots to totally disappear by fundamentally altering the structure of how things are said. 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.

@Pi zero: I didn't do that; I wrote the article separate from the sources, and then tweaked to avoid similarity when I later compared. Why do you suggest I did that? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I didn't say you copied. No doubt my phrasing wasn't ideal (writing review comments is, well, difficult). However you got to the position where you were making those "distance from source language" edits, when coping with such a situation, aim for more fundamental structural change. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pi zero: if you saw, I tried to make a more fundamental change in places, and it was then too close to a different source... --DannyS712 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That sort of thing can be a problem, yeah. --Pi zero (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Super Tuesday

Was that postponed? 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:26 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)