First of all, let me say that this is a good article. It shows that a lot of effort has gone into it. It is well-written, covers the ground, and, in general, is a fine example of how collaborative editing should be done. A strict constructionist, who followed the letter of the criteria, would probably give this good article status, or at least specify a few picky points that needed to be cleared up before attaining GA status.
Alas, I am not that strict constructionist. I find (in addition to the few picky points), a number of structural problems, and a few lacunae, that I feel should be fixed before becoming GA. I will discuss those structural issues before my detailed GA review.
I realize that there will be those who disagree with this review, and I am perfectly comfortable if you choose to ask for a second opinion, and another reviewer gives the article GA based on a strict reading of the criteria; because, as I say, if you look narrowly at the list of criteria, Bernie passes.
The lead
This is the first problem, and it is currently under discussion on the talk page: Should Sanders's presidential candidacy be at the top of the lead? (Sorry, I am a very old-school writer and despise that Wikipedian misspelling).
My own vote is emphatically yes. If it weren't for Sanders's remarkable candidacy, he would not today be the household word he is. His candidacy is a - no, the - key reason for his notability.
That said, if the result of the discussion on the talk page is that the presidential candidacy should not be at the top of the lead, I will accept that verdict. In any case, the issue must be resolved before the article can be considered for GA.
Early life and Personal life
It struck me as odd to the brink of bizarre that these two sections bracketed the article. A reader of Sanders's personal biography would expect to read about his marriage and family in the same section that discusses his youth, education, and early professional life. They should be together.
Positions and Tenure
I realize that there is a separate article on Sanders's positions. Nonetheless, there should be a clear(er) statement of his positions in this article. The problem is that his positions are spread around three different sections: the section on his tenure in the House, the section on his tenure in the Senate, and the section "Political Positions". These three sections need to be combined and restructured.
The problem is not only that the positions are scattered about in the article; even where they are, presumably, presented together, they are all jumbled up. For example, the last sentence in the first paragraph on his positions - "Sanders also advocates bold action to reverse global warming and infrastructure investment in the United States... " - appears in the paragraph about his socialism. But environmental issues are not related to socialism. The second paragraph is an unsorted hodgepodge of stuff in no particular order.
I would suggest that the whole section be rewritten in a bullet structure, something like this:
Socialism and economics:
Environment:
International affairs:
Social issues:
In each section, I would include both a statement of his position, and his voting record (now in the "Tenure" sections). I think that would make things a lot clearer for the reader.
Missing background and context, editorial nitpicks
The problem of missing background and context is not just one of this article; it is a problem rife throughout Wikipedia. Here is a list of statements in the article that leave the average reader (me, for example) scratching his or her head. The list includes all the things I noted, including various editorial issues of minor importance; but there may well be more. Editors should peel their eyes for these things:
"In 1985, Burlington City Hall hosted a foreign policy speech by Noam Chomsky." In fact, I know all about Noam Chomsky, but I bet your average high school student reader does not. You should say in a few words, who Chomsky is, and why inviting Chomsky to Burlington is controversial, or at least notable.
"The Sanders administration also 'sued the local cable franchise... ": strictly speaking, it was not the administration that sued, but the municipality under Sanders's leadership. Also, there is no reason to put this business in quotes. Quotes should be used when someone states an opinion, or says something in a unique or remarkable way. That is not the case here. Same is true of the quote in the next paragraph.
"This was greatly assisted by a 1989 Vermont Supreme Court ruling that under a legal provision, Central Vermont Railroad could only use the land for 'railroad, wharf, and storage purposes'; 35 acres of railroad land reverted to the city." I don't get this: How is the reversion of the land to the city related to the court case?
"Many national media outlets projected Sanders the winner before any returns came in." Seriously, is this worth mentioning? He was leading by a margin of 2 to 1. Who wouldn't predict it?
"His entry into the race was welcomed by Senator Elizabeth Warren..." Why is Warren's support more significant than that of other leading political figures? She gets a whole paragraph, no one else even gets a mention.
"Sanders's campaign events in June 2015 drew "overflow crowds" around the country... " Quote marks unnecessary (see above).
Anomalies that need explaining
There are a few things in the article which suggest that Sanders is contradicting himself or acting in ways that seem contrary to his convictions, that need clarification:
In the section on his House tenure, it says Sanders took consistent pro-gun positions: he voted against the Brady Bill, and in favor of the NRA bill. This is certainly odd for someone all of whose other positions are resolutely on the liberal side of the map. Don't you all think some explanation is needed?
Why did he oppose Iraq intervention in 1991, 2002 and 2003 but support it in 2001?
Controversy
There is no mention anywhere about Sanders's opponents. I am not an expert on this subject, but I would suppose that his views are considered by many to be off the wall. A quick Google search for "Bernie Sanders criticism" turns up a lot of interesting stuff, perhaps most notably this article.
Don't you all think a section on his political opponents would be in order?
Blow-by-blow review
Well written
The prose is clear and concise, with the minor exceptions noted above.
It respects copyright laws
Spelling and grammar are correct. I was especially pleased to see the possessive of Sanders's name done correctly. A lot of editors would have written Sanders'.
It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The issue of his presidential candidacy in the lead needs to be resolved (see above).
Verifiable with no original research
It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Actually, it doesn't. My own preference is for a complete bibliography at the end, rather than including all the bibliographical information in the footnotes. But I know that a lot of articles are written that way, so I won't ding you on this.
All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
It contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage
It addresses the main aspects of the topic
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. As noted above, a section on controversy would be in order.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. On the other hand, we need to be aware that this is a breaking story, and the article is likely to change a good bit over the next year - dramatically (one way or another) after the convention, and maybe again after the election. But, for the moment, at least, it is stable.
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Personally, I find the images in this article predictable and pedestrian. Aren't there free-use pictures of him playing basketball? kissing babies? slipping on the ice? I think if you make the effort, you can spice up the visuals quite a bit.
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Conclusion
No GA from me this time around. But, as I say, a lot of this is my personal pontificating, and I am self-aware enough to know that others think otherwise. So, especially if you clean up the nit-picky stuff, you might want a different reviewer next time around. I won't be insulted.
I think you did a great job! I'm very impressed with your skill and hope that you'd consider a second review if the other editors are in agreement. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]