Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp/archive2
previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008)
Toolbox |
---|
At nomination 1, I had just responded to most of the negative feedback the day it was closed. I think it might have passed had it stayed up another day. However, I have expanded the page a bit by sourcing details from U. S. News & World Report, Atlantic Monthly, and Newsweek to supplement the page that I felt was already pretty high quality. Its length still remains within the same range as the other world leaders noted on the first nomination although it is longer than the typical WP biography. I continue to believe that this is among the finest articles on WP and hope a few people now agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support, as before, only more strongly. With a penetrating focus on the various phases of Kemp's life and career, an eminently readable style, and almost 300 footnotes (!), no question. Biruitorul (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Terrific writing, the article is very comprehensive on his entire life and careers, and neutral on all portions of it. Hello32020 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too many simple grammar mistakes and other issues.
Second paragraph of the lead: "ranging from his conservative opposition to abortion more centrist stances such as advocacy of immigration reform." Place a connecting word after abortion, and try to avoid a pair of "tos" so close together.
- Got it. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"Kemp also co-founded the American Football League Players Association, which he served as president for five terms." I think the flow of the sentence could be improved. How about "Kemp also co-founded the American Footballl League Players Association, for which he served five terms as president."
- That is a stylistic thing that I can go with although I don't really see the difference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead gets repetitive. Try this: "Since returning to public life, Kemp has continued a career of public service. He has been active as a political advocate and commentator, as well as serving on corporate and non-profit organization boards. Kemp has served in official capacities to promote American football and has been a political advocate for the Republican Party and retired professional football players." Also see if you can avoid having two "servings" that close.
I know you need to mention the Time cover in the text in order to use it, but it doesn't work for me in the story. At least get rid of the Mars part, which is completely off-topic.
- We have two issues. 1.) I have found a paucity of free pics for a modern leader of Kemp's level of historical importance and we need more pics. Thus, we must use fair use. 2.) Fair use images must have some encyclopedic value. Just saying Kemp was on the cover of Time. Look at the picture is not really an encyclopedic value. However, when you can say the editors at Time wrote a story on the deliberations regarding the complicated decision on whether to put Dole-Kemp on the cover instead of the discovery of Life on Mars, the image becomes encyclopedic because it relates to a significant controversy or public dilemna. I hope that convinces you to allow it to stay as it is. Please read the citation about the controversy as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If it was controversial, I think you should adjust the text, as I don't really sense that now. Insets are commonly used on magazine covers. Consider putting it like this: "which was so close to being on the cover that Time wrote about how difficult their decision was". Then move the citation with the story to the end of the paragraph, or use it twice if you prefer.Giants2008 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- How is rewording?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks just fine. One more little thing: "August 19, 1996 Time magazine". Put "issue of" in the middle. Other than that, it looks good.Giants2008 (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
First sentence of Post-political life: "also known as the first of the two "Reagan tax cuts"". Delete the second "the".
- I am not sure I agree, but done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A bit later: "even George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary, John Snow, are a believers." Lose "a".
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2nd paragraph of Presidential bid (1988): His campaign was on an early positive course with many key early endorsements in New Hampshire," Flip key and early.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2nd paragraph of Cabinet: "Kemp was constantly at odds with White House Budget Director, Richard Darman who opposed... Remove comma and place after Darman.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Next sentence: "HOPE was first proposed to John Sununu, the White House chief of staff in June 1989... Either put another comma after "staff" or change it to this: "HOPE was first proposed to White House chief of staff John Sununu in June 1989...
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're going to hate me for this one, but reference publishers only need to be linked at first appearance, and the same goes for the work column.
- Is there a policy that you are referring to. I have seen it this way more often. The thinking is that readers don't read through every ref and linking it each time means it will be linked in the few refs they read. Imagine a reader reading much more than even 5 refs in this article. It would take him hours to read the article. Out of 5 refs he is only likely to see the same publisher or work maybe twice at most, but likely he would see a bunch of singletons. I think much like linking renews in separate charts in the same article it should with separate footnotes. Places other than refs that links repeat in FA articles are infoboxes and image captions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Although it's just a guideline, see WP:CONTEXT: "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following." For more on the issues caused by this, see the current FAC USS Orizaba (ID-1536). Pay particular attention to User:Circeus' comments.Giants2008 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- At WP:FAL the first article (most recent WP:FA promotion) is Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). Next relevant FAL listing is Emery Molyneux. This formatting is current convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked SandyGeorgia about this, and she said linking every publisher is overlinking and not necessary (her words). Just throwing it out there.Giants2008 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why do we only link the first usage, because a reader is suppose to look up the linked page the first time he sees it and remember it for the rest of the article. We make no assumption that the reader looks at every link. In an article with 300 links suppose you are looking at the 250th, but you did not look at the 64th, should we assume you know where to find the proper linkages. The purpose of the link in the ref is to allow the reader to understand the significance of the publisher and/or work. However, if you delink all subsequent links the reader will not be able to quickly differentiate between the unlinked terms and previously linked ones. Sandy has been passing all the other FACs that use this prevailing convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Continuing down the WP:FAL see David Suzuki: The Autobiography and History of Norwich City F.C.. There is no preference on repetitive linking of publisher and works. It is currently a matter of preference with almost all recent FAs that link publishers and works at all repeating linkages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that footnotes often move around. This instability is the nature of wikipedia. It is a Sisyphean task to keep only the first instances wikilinked. A guideline like this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If you think it is low-value link then you could remove it with no resistance. If there is resistance, it's not worth a fight. --maclean 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not how I would do it, but the explanation is convincing enough for me to strike. Giants2008 (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot a great information in here, but as Tony would say: "Get a fresh pair of eyes to look at it." Giants2008 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Giants2008. Although I've only read the lead and the first section, I can tell this article needs quite a bit of work.
- The lead is kind of a mess. First, I don't get the structure. Why does it start with his career as a politician, then move to his time as a football player, then go on with the time after his political life, and finish by mentioning that he was in the Army (when? no one knows)? Second, it doesn't mention that Kemp left public life and then a paragraph starts with "Since returning to public life". Furthermore: "Kemp has held duties in official capacities to promote American football and has been a political advocate for the Republican Party and retired professional football players." Of course he was an advocate for the Republicans; he was in office as a member of the party. "Kemp is also a veteran of the United States Army who has authored, co-authored, and edited several books." What has his having been in the Army have to do with the books he wrote? They don't seem to deal with the military.
- I have swapped the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. This gives the WP:LEAD an opening paragraph describing his most important/notable roles. Then subsequent paragraphs give high level detail related to these important roles in sequential order. I moved the bit about the military to complete this reordering.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Kemp, who was born, raised and educated in Los Angeles, California, attended Fairfax High School, which is known both for its historically high concentration of Jewish students and for producing celebrities." The fact that he grew up in Los Angeles is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
- Is saying you were "born, raised and educated" redundant with saying you grew up there?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Although by the end of the century, Fairfax had become a majority Hispanic high school,[6] over 95 percent of Kemp's classmates were Jewish and he became a supporter of Jewish causes." By the end of what century? I presume you mean the 20th. Then it should be "would become"; the "had" implies that it had a Hispanic majority by the time Kemp attended it.
- Great catch. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides.[8] The school is located on Melrose Avenue, and its alumni include Herb Alpert, David Arquette, Lenny Kravitz, Ricardo Montalban, David Janssen, Timothy Hutton and Mickey Rooney.[9][6]" The flow of these sentences is kind of weird. First it talks about the school's alumni, then it moves on to its location and then goes back to the alumni.
- How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Despite his proximity to the trappings of celebrity and entitlement, Kemp learned to embrace diversity and hard work during his experience working with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles." What? "Proximity to the trappings of celebrity and entitlement" normally turns people into bigots?
- I removed the offensive part of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Kemp's habit of rigorous reading showed in high school where he read history and philosophy books" If he had this habit before high school - as this sentence suggests - then it already it showed before by him reading other books.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Revised text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The lead is kind of a mess. First, I don't get the structure. Why does it start with his career as a politician, then move to his time as a football player, then go on with the time after his political life, and finish by mentioning that he was in the Army (when? no one knows)? Second, it doesn't mention that Kemp left public life and then a paragraph starts with "Since returning to public life". Furthermore: "Kemp has held duties in official capacities to promote American football and has been a political advocate for the Republican Party and retired professional football players." Of course he was an advocate for the Republicans; he was in office as a member of the party. "Kemp is also a veteran of the United States Army who has authored, co-authored, and edited several books." What has his having been in the Army have to do with the books he wrote? They don't seem to deal with the military.
- Comment - This article is incredibly long, and being over 100k, unwieldy. Perhaps make a page devoted to his football career and to his political career and "main article" link them with summations of both in their own categories. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The article is in the same range of other leaders such as Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, etc. See first nomination for more extensive list. The article is a bit longer now but wtill only 62 KB of readable prose. It has lengthy refs which make the article seem longer than it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- And they are in violation of MoS guidelines also for their excessive length. And "only" 62k? You mean "only" violation MoS by 2k, when MoS tries to have people top off around 50k total? And for your information, the "text" portion is how you read "readable prose" according to the tool, and that doesn't include references which even the MoS includes, so, I would guess you are a good 20k over. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you made a list of articles over 60KB, you would find they are people or topics that go well beyond the WP:N threshold and for whom dedicated Libraries could be built. Basically, a fraction of a percent of all articles are exceptions to the rule. See Template:FA Reagan, Template:GAstarBush, G.W., Template:GAstarClinton, B., Template:GAstarStephen Harper, Template:GAstarRice, C.,
Template:GAstarClinton, H., Template:FAGrover Cleveland, Template:FAFord, Template:FA Roosevelt, F., and Template:FARoosevelt, T..--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you made a list of articles over 60KB, you would find they are people or topics that go well beyond the WP:N threshold and for whom dedicated Libraries could be built. Basically, a fraction of a percent of all articles are exceptions to the rule. See Template:FA Reagan, Template:GAstarBush, G.W., Template:GAstarClinton, B., Template:GAstarStephen Harper, Template:GAstarRice, C.,
- Violations of MoS are violations of MoS. If an FA is more than 10 printable pages, then it should be removed from FA status until it is trimmed down. Your page is 3 printable pages greater than the maximum suggested under MoS. Please, if you want to follow standard formating procedures, do what is recommended. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
More comments - After another look, I'm actually more concerned about the article.
Major error: Why is John Rauch's name incorrect in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think that was a pretty minor typo (Rausch).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting involved in edit conflict after edit conflict tonight. I found a lot more problems with the article, but they will have to wait until tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. I'll try again, in multiple parts. Here goes.
College: "I guess we won" needs quotation marks and probably a cite.- Added the quotes, and the cite although it is the same as the following sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Marriage and family: Why are the ages of his children not mentioned? At least tell us how old his first child was so we can figure the rest out.- I have never heard of this being required although at Tiger Woods and Donald Trump, Jr. their infant ages seem important. Two are linkable and have birthdates in the links. I will reconfigure with kids ages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- N.B.: Included in infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Football career: Please state that the AFL was a new league. It will provide context for the next sentence, showing that this new league needed overlooked players like Kemp to fill rosters. It's touched on to a certain extent, but I think it can be improved.- added "newly-formed"
Chargers era: It's almost unheard of for a pro quarterback to finish near the top of the league in rushing statistics (maybe in college). Maybe some more info about this.- Anything else would be WP:OR. I researched this football section when I was in Buffalo, where they had a lot of AFL resources. All I can do from Chicago is point to webpages of stats. I don't have much else to say, but it speaks for itself. He must have run a lot of quarterback sneaks or something, but I would be hazarding a guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's unusual, but if you don't have any info, there's nothing you can do about it. Giants2008 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Later in section: Dash in first class.- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Lou Saban era: Why is Pro Football capitalized?- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Next paragraph: "Injuries, including a broken finger, kept Kemp from performing for most of the 1962 season." Replace "performing" with "playing".- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Third paragraph of section: Al Davis spying on the Bills needs a cite. I don't know if the book cite following the next sentence is supposed to reference this, but we should always be careful with living people. Also, what does this have to do with Kemp?- I thought putting the same ref after both adjacent sentences would be overkill, but I will add one to the first if you like. Note this is related to Kemp because of the subsequent season that mentions the slow start. This just makes it clear that the slow start was encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It normally wouldn't be necessary to use the same citation in consecutive sentences, but potentially libellous facts should always be handled with caution.Giants2008 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)- added double ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought putting the same ref after both adjacent sentences would be overkill, but I will add one to the first if you like. Note this is related to Kemp because of the subsequent season that mentions the slow start. This just makes it clear that the slow start was encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Who called him a clubhouse lawyer?- The book is back in Buffalo at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library. I can't double check it from here, but the citation refs the first three sentences in this paragraph as I recall. What should I do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- A google exact term search on "Jack Kemp" "Clubhouse lawyer" yields one of the books already listed in the refs, but for some reason I can not view it on my computer. If you can see it can you get the ref for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The book is back in Buffalo at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library. I can't double check it from here, but the citation refs the first three sentences in this paragraph as I recall. What should I do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look at what I found: Schultz, Randy (2003). Legends of the Buffalo Bills. Sports Publishing LLC, page 26. ISBN 1582616876. Giants2008 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is the one. I thought I already had used the book. Anyways, I can not see the google book result in my browser right now. Feel free to add the appropriate text or wait until I am somewhere that I can see the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did this for you. If you want, I could attempt to format this like the other books used, with page numbers for each citation. Up to you, though. Giants2008 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Would like to see a cite for Paul Lowe's awards (or is this referenced in the following sentence?).Giants2008 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)- I believe these facts predate my involvement with the article. I arrived when it was 12.1KB, and I took it to its current state of 159.1KB. I have done a lot of checking to make sure I had cites for Kemp's MVP's and recall confirming that Lowe won the others. I can not say which ref backs this up, but one of the two should if I recall. Looking at the 12.1 KB version] it use to just say they shared the MVP in a succession box. So I guess it is actually my spotty citations here because I only cared about the Kemp citations, but I can't get the cites for you from 550 miles away. I will check here in Chicago and see if they have any information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just found an online ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe these facts predate my involvement with the article. I arrived when it was 12.1KB, and I took it to its current state of 159.1KB. I have done a lot of checking to make sure I had cites for Kemp's MVP's and recall confirming that Lowe won the others. I can not say which ref backs this up, but one of the two should if I recall. Looking at the 12.1 KB version] it use to just say they shared the MVP in a succession box. So I guess it is actually my spotty citations here because I only cared about the Kemp citations, but I can't get the cites for you from 550 miles away. I will check here in Chicago and see if they have any information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Part two
Several suggestions for Joe Collier era: To avoid repetition, try this: "which was played for the right to represent the AFL in Super Bowl I". Capitalize star in All-star twice in same sentence. Why was the loss to the Oilers bad? If it was a blowout, briefly mention it. In last paragraph of section, lose Joe and Jack.- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Another Jack in John Rauch era.- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Career summary: Try this: He led Buffalo to three straight Eastern Division titles, and the 1964 and 1965 American Football League championships". I don't like the placement of the receivers. See if you can find a better spot.- That is sort of ungrammatical with the malplacedf comma and double ands. I revised slightly differently.--
TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- That predates my involvement with the article. However, I beleive in passing I remember seeing a fact like that somewhere. Again, I can't cite most of the AFL stuff from Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I get real lazy about rereading quotes, but if you went throught the 200 or so online quotes you would find the phrase man of ideas, idea guy, idea man at least a half dozen times. I know this is better than idea guy, but do you prefer man of ideas?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
At least change "recognize" to "recognized". If that was a common phrase used to describe him, it's hard to change it. How does "visionary thinker" sound?Giants2008 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
One-sentence paragraph at end of Post-political life. Try to find a better spot.- I beefed up the para.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pulling for this article, but hopefully you understand my concerns. Giants2008 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to lend a fresh pair of eyes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While I have all these eyes on the page, can someone address the talk page concern of where the Jr. came from.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment made previously on the article talk, but no response there. In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description, so it's rather confusing. Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral. Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets". Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or is a pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion. And to be clear, I'm not saying or implying that any editor is personally biased. .... A separate comment about FAC: There has been good progress with this article, but I don't think the writing is all that great yet. Lots of issues have been identified and corrected above. I've made a fair few edits myself. But my feeling is that FAC is the place to bring an article that is already well-copyedited, and just needs a minor tweak or two. This was a major issue in the last FAC, and basically the article needs a new set of eyes from someone with great writing skills. That said, the facts and references and coverage all seem to be of FA quality to me. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)