Talk:1984 Indiana's 8th congressional district election/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: 金色黎明 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'll look over the article and see if it meets the good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• The lead should tell us who the candidates were before getting into the results.
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Background:

• Good.

Campaign:

• Is there any more information about the primary elections? We have preliminary resulted, but we don't have final results, descriptions of the other candidates, or information on how the primary candidates campaigned. Who was Hills, and what distinguished him from McCloskey? I know House primaries aren't major elections and there might not be a huge amount of sourcing, but anything would be helpful.
  •  Done: I found the final result on Secretary of State of Indiana's report--金色黎明 (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• The article says what McIntyre campaigned on, but not what McCloskey campaigned on.
  •  Done:I wrote a introductions of both sides--金色黎明 (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Election contest:

• "that differed in consequential ways" – Do we know what these ways are? The article doesn't need to be super technical, but if any sources described what made the processes different, that would be good to add.
  •  Done: I found the difference from a report--金色黎明 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• "After months of investigation and ballot review" – What happened during these months?
  •  Done: I deleted that sentence.--金色黎明 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath:

• Good.

Source spot checks for text-source integrity and copyright issues:

• [3] Sabato's Crystal Ball (2018) – The article implies the 8th already had a long-standing reputation by 1984, but the source only goes back to 1982. "helped set the stage for a high-profile reelection contest two years later" can be interpreted from the source, but it doesn't actually say this.
• [5] Zelizer (2018) – Good, but ideally the article should have more information from this source. For example, the article doesn't mention Leon Panetta by name or describe Newt Gingrich's role in shaping the narrative. The source also calls it a "now-forgotten fight", which might be useful context for the aftermath. Sources like this are the best ones to use when writing an article about something like an election. It's written later, so it has the hindsight of which facts ended up being relevant and it provides more context.
• [6] Werth (1984) – Good.
• [9] Michels (1984) – Good.
• [20] Belsie (1986) – Good, it doesn't mention Reagan but the other citation does.

金色黎明, the article is really well put together and doesn't have any major problems. I made some copyedits, mostly wikilinks and minor wording changes for clarity; feel free to edit or comment on them. The only place where it doesn't meet the GA criteria is breadth. The article is pretty short and has some gaps where there should be explanations and analysis. I encourage mining sources when adding them to make sure everything relevant is included in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for your review. I have made revisions to the article in response to your suggestions.--金色黎明 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)