Talk:Henry M. Jackson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
- Archive 1: November 2005 - June 2006.
[edit] Good Article nomination
Overall the article looks quite good and is well referenced. However, before passing it I think a few things should be addressed:
- Papers controversy should be better integrated into the rest of the article and updated to reflect any developments in the last 16 months.
- Quotes section should be merged into the rest of the article or at least trimmed. Wikiquote is down the hall.
- Other than that it looks great. I'll will put the article on hold for a week and pass it if the above concerns are addressed. Eluchil404 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes
I agree that the quote section should be axed. The selections of them also have a hint of POV to them. Look for a middle ground that best reflects the man. I never heard much about him but going with the picture the article paints, the quotes that I would keep and find a way to fit into the article would be "I'm not a hawk or a dove. I just don't want my country to be a pigeon." (Probably best in Influence on neoconservatism) and "If you believe in the cause of freedom, then proclaim it, live it and protect it, for humanity's future depends on it." (It would depend on the context of the quote, if it was during a campaign I would put it there. Otherwise it might fit in the neocon section) 205.157.110.11 12:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- This may seem absurd in light of my comment down below but I would interject that any of the quotes you keep should be referenced. Most of them already are but the ones that the anon user mentioned are not. Agne 16:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Over referenced?
Being a "source freak", I didn't think I would ever utter this words but I think we're a little overboard on some of the in-line citation. Most notable is the 10 inline citations at the end of the "Neoconservatism Section" but really as a whole I think about a third of the citations are not needed. Looking at the discussion on this talk page, I really they are result of an unfortunate edit war but now that the dust has settle can we take another look at thinning that area out? Agne 16:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The only people who were insisting on such absurd sourcing are banned from editing this article per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake. So feel free to trim down as you see fit, I'll help out later on tonight if you don't beat me to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA nomination failed
As per my post above, I am failing the GA nomination since the concerns I identified have not been addressed in the past week. I would encourage a renom after some clean-up. Overall it is quite good but just not up to GA standards yet. Eluchil404 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
