Talk:1990 Nebraska gubernatorial election

Photos

Official Senate photo of Nelson

I have not included photos of the candidates, or of other individuals mentioned (e.g. Kerrey), in this article. In particular, I haven't used the official Senate photo of Nelson. Although the photo isn't dated, I suspect that it was taken ca. 2010, some twenty years after this election. I'd like photos of these people to illustrate the article, but they need to be photos showing how the subjects looked around 1990, not decades later. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ammodramus: Convention is to use photos of candidates. It doesn't matter what the candidate looked like during the election. If there is an image of Nelson around 1990, it should certainly be used but in the absence of one an image taken a decade later will be just fine. MB298 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: Thanks for the note. Could you point me to a discussion in which consensus was established on this convention? If the consensus wasn't strong, or if was reached in a discussion with relatively few participants, I'd like to try to re-open the question.

Just to state my argument briefly, I think that it'd mislead the reader to illustrate an election article with a photo of a candidate taken at a time when their appearance had changed significantly. A candidate's looks might well have had some bearing on how people had voted—see Kennedy vs. Nixon, for instance. Now suppose that Oswald had missed, and that in the absence of an earlier photo we'd had to illustrate the article on the 1960 election with a photo of JFK as he appeared in 1980, with gray receding hair, wrinkles, and multiple chins. Better no picture than one that's so different from the images seen by voters in the election under discussion. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ammodramus: I'm not aware of any such discussion, as it hasn't been such a notable topic to be discussed, however there are several examples of using present-day images of past politicians, for example see List of Governors of New Mexico. The image used to illustrate Toney Anaya, who served during the 1980s, is from 2008 and the one to illustrate David Cargo, who served during the 1960s, is from 2006, for lack of an image taken during that time period. Another example would be Idaho gubernatorial election, 1994, where the image of Phil Batt was taken in 2010 and Larry EchoHawk from sometime recent (it doesn't give an exact date). I've been looking through the Reagan contact sheets in an attempt to find photos of governors taken during that time period. I'd be open to opening an RfC in order to discuss this matter. MB298 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1990/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 12:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this one within a few days. Canadian Paul 12:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your taking the time to do this review, and I'm looking forward to your comments on the article.

I did a lot of the research in my local college library's bound copies of the Unicameral Update and microfilm copies of the Omaha World-Herald; unfortunately, this means that most of the citations are to sources that aren't available online. I photographed the pages of the UU and the screen of the microfilm reader, and saved the photos to my hard drive, so I've got most of these sources available. Should questions arise concerning these, I can check up on them, and quote excerpts from the articles as necessary. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Just a few comments for this one:

1. Under "Background", second paragraph: "Orr's popularity was further damaged by..." since this could be something reasonably challenged, it should be cited directly rather than among the several citations at the end of the paragraph.
2. Under "Candidates" (for the Democratic primary), first paragraph: "Attracted in part by Orr's perceived vulnerability..." Do the citations for each person state that they were attracted by this? Or is there a general citation that makes this claim? Because individuals often have different motivations for challenging the primaries regardless of the candidate's vulnerability, and we can't just assume that there were candidates for whom vulnerability was part of their decision to run.
3. Under "Newspaper endorsements,": "the Kearney Hub Boyle; and the North Platte Telegraph both Boyle and Hoppner." There's a missing word here, presumably "endorsed", but given the context, it could be several different things, so I thought I'd ask rather than fill it in.
4. Under "Results" (for the Republican primary), it is written both that "Orr had been expected to win easily, and did" and "Orr's poor performance", which to the average reader is going to seem contradictory. I get what is meant here (i.e. a relatively poor performance) but I think that this could be clarified a bit (it's a little clearer in the lead, for example), with perhaps the wording receiving direct citations since they could be challenged.
5. Under "Lieutenant governor" (for the Republican primary): "Orr's incumbent lieutenant governor, Bill Nichol, did not run for re-election." In terms of breadth of coverage, do we know why? Seems like an important detail (as it could, in theory, be related to, say, the viability of Orr's campaign) that a reader would want to know about.
6. In terms of the comment raised on the talk page, I do think that the article would be enhanced by images of the main contenders, but your rationale for not including them makes sense, so at least in terms of the GA Criteria, I think that the image one is satisfied in this case.

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 11:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to this so quickly. I've addressed a few of your points tonight, and will get to the remaining one tomorrow.

Regarding #1, I've moved a citation so that it immediately follows the statement that you suggested might be subject to challenge. (I also noticed that it occured in a paragraph that treated two different subjects, which paragraph I've split.)

I'll have to put #2 on hold for a while, during which I'll go through my source stories. If I can't find a good source for the "Attracted in part..." phrase, I'll cut it.

Re. #3: Not a missing word—I used an elliptical construction so I wouldn't be repeating "endorsed...endorsed", or hunting for synonyms. I've just consulted a couple of grammar websites ([1][2]), which indicated that I ought to use commas in the place of the elided verbs; I've added the commas.

Regarding #4, I've tweaked the phrasing. The Robert Dorr story cited at the end of the sentence used the phrase "the unexpectedly heavy Sullivan vote", so I've rephrased it from "Orr's poor performance" to "Sullivan's unexpectedly high percentage". Everything in that sentence is supported by the Dorr story.

Regarding #5, I tried to find something on this while I was researching and writing the article, but couldn't. I didn't see anything about Nichol's decision not to run for re-election while going through months of microfilmed Omaha World-Heralds, even in the few articles that mentioned the lieutenant-gubernatorial race. As noted in a footnote, a Sioux City Journal obituary of Nichol erroneously states that he was defeated with Orr. A Scottsbluff Star-Herald obituary says nothing about why he didn't seek re-election. Those were the only decent sources on Nichol that I could find.

Again, thanks for your time, effort, and input. I'll try to address #2 tomorrow. Ammodramus (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through my sources, and I can't find anything that gives strong support to the "Attracted in part..." phrase. I suspect that I got it from this NYT story, cited elsewhere in the article, which includes "Those polling results are apparently one element that has encouraged several Democrats to weigh candidacies for the primaries..." The statement from the article seems much stronger than the NYT story, with its "apparently", can support; so I've removed it. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding #3, I see it now, definitely a case of missing the forest for the trees on that one. Regarding Nichol, I still find it odd that no one mentioned anything, but I obviously cannot ask you to include information that isn't available. Since everything looks great now with the improvements, I'm going to go ahead and pass the article for GA. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 08:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Nichol, it might be possible to find that information, but it'd probably involve going through months of microfilmed World-Heralds, scanning for a relevant headline. My neck, back, and eyes can only take about two weeks' worth of microfilm at a sitting... The lieutenant governor has very little in the way of official duties, and there was almost nothing about the LG race in the papers that I consulted; so, unless there was something newsworthy about the circumstances, an incumbent LG's decision not to run for re-election would probably get about three paragraphs on page 9.

And thanks again for taking the time to do this review. I know that GARs can require a great deal of time and effort on the reviewer's part, and I appreciate your willingness to make that kind of committment to the improvement of the encyclopedia. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423082228/http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423082228/http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306062724/http://nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/S1200/S001-1990prim_gen.pdf to http://nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/S1200/S001-1990prim_gen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of map change

I've reverted a change in the Democratic-primary-results map. The new map (which I've reverted) arguably presents more information: whereas the old one (the one I've restored) only showed the plurality winner in each county, the new one attempted to break it down further by percentages. I've placed both below: the old one on the left, the new on the right.

I think that the new one attempts to present too much detail, and does so at the expense of clarity. In particular, I suspect that it'll be close to useless for color-blind readers. In the course of creating the old map, I sought feedback from a color-blind Wikipedian, who emphasized that differences of brightness were the surest way to make it legible for such readers. The new map, with its pastel shades of varying brightness within each color, almost certainly fails that criterion. — Ammodramus (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidate with plurality in each county in the Democratic primary

Primary results by county:

  Nelson

•   20–30%
•   30–40%
•   40–50%
•   50–60%
•   60–70%

  Hoppner

•   20–30%
•   30–40%
•   40–50%
•   70–80%

  Boyle

•   20–30%
•   30–40%
•   40–50%

  Harris

•   20–30%
•   40–50%

  Tie