Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Jack Kemp

I'm nominating this article for featured article because. I have spent the last month and a half cleaning up the article (that looked like this) by reading all 368 articles that show in the Time magazine search for Jack Kemp and the first 130 articles in the New York Times search. I have attempted to be as neutral as these sources are by including both the positives and negatives from these sources. Two lingering issues remain from the WP:GA promotion process:

  1. There is some concern about the article's length, but I noted in the WP:GAC nomination page that a WP:FA could be written about either his football or his political career. Thus, a single unified biography will be lenghty. I also compared the article to several other by starting at the top and hitting page down until I got to the footnotes. On my current screen it took seven times for Kemp. This is shorter than several other important national figures: Featured article Reagan -10 although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet, Good articleClinton, H. -10, Good articleBush, G.W. -11, Good articleClinton, B. -10, Good articleStephen Harper -9, Good articleRice, C. -12, Good articleMcCain -8, Featured articleGrover Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-9, Featured articleFord -10, Featured articleEmma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely) -10, Featured article Roosevelt, F. -13, Featured articleRoosevelt, T. -15.
  2. There is an issue on where the opinions on Soccer belong. I initial had this as a separate section. To pass GA I moved it. An uninvolved editor stated that he felt the original placement was better.

I think the article is extensive. I have not exhausted good neutral sources of information if more detail is desired. His Newsweek search has 111 results and I have only used one. His New York Times search had thousands of articles and I only used the first 130. However, all articles are works in progress and I think I have done enough that it should be considered fairly complete. However, part of the reason his article is shorter than others is his article is sparse on images. I do think this article is ready for review. However, as with all important politicians it is impossible to make everyone happy as far as Neutrality goes. I welcome stylistic suggestions and stand ready to respond to all commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that for the football section, I went to the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library and found a few Buffalo Bills Books and American Football League books that are not likely to be found in too many Libraries outside of Western New York.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question it gives the dates he was "in office" as the 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee - is the position generally regarded as an office? Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Reply I think you are really asking does this belong in an infobox rather than is it an office. It is not an office as I understand it. However, I am not sure what is proper for the infobox. It is the highest position he held. I have noticed templates and succession boxes for the position. I do not know whether it is Kosher to include it in an infobox of a WP:FA. Guidance is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, looking at the succession boxes for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford it is an office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "He championed several Chicago school and supply side economics issues: economic growth, free markets, free trade, tax simplification and lower tax rates on both work and investment. " is sourced to http://www.kemppartners.com/principals-jk1.htm, which is Kemp's consulting firm. Would be better sourced to a third-party source
    With so many articles in that paragraph summarizing his positions, I doubt anyone would really question if these are his positions who even reads only that paragraph. If you feel that particular sentence needs to have a backup citation from a WP:RS, I will reread the refs for the rest of the paragraph and find one. Do you think that is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave this up for other folks to weigh in on. I lean towards it being an okay source, but borderline. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 76 needs a page number and publisher information (Jack Kemp An American Renaissance) and so does current ref 77 (Robert Bartley The Seven Fat Years)
    These refs predate my involvement in the article. They would be more useful with page numbers, but I last saw the American Renaissance book when I was in Buffalo and did not read it. I could probably get my hands on the book in Chicago, but then I would have to read the whole thing until I came up with a page. I know nothing about the other book. Let me know how essential the page numbers are in this context.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers are really not negotiable. They are part of WP:V and WP:CITE. Since this is a BLP and a political figure, we need to be especially careful with sources and citing things. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's put this in context. I came to a 12.1KB article that had four help needed banners on it and that was lightly cited. I beefed it up to a 121 KB article that has citations everywhere. The 10% that I did not write has a couple of citations that are inline, but to whole books not pages. I have been on your side of this debate in the past (See Edward Teller's WP:FAR). On my 90% you can fairly hold me to new WP:FAC standards, but on the 10% that is not mine I think the slightly lower WP:FAR standards on extant text may apply. This is where we call on User:SandyGeorgia and other experts. In general, it is always significantly harder to properly cite another authors work than your own. Put a {{fact}} tag on anything I added and I think it would be fair for me to undertake citing it. However, the other stuff just comes along for the ride, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These are sourcing this statement "These tax cuts have been attributed for the economic growth from 1983 to 1990, the then largest peacetime expansion of the United States GDP.", they are both on that one sentence. Any chance there is some article out there on the web that covers this? I can see where you are coming from, I've been there in the past, but on the other hand, it is a statement that is likely to be challenged, and it should be verifiable, which means page numbers. I'll leave this discussion up here for others to judge for themselves, or help out as the case may be. Myself, I'm willing to defer to someone else's judgement on this one. (Give me a bishop any day!) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I am about to pop my DVD in before I call it a day. However, you did call my attention to some shoddy grammar. S/B either
  • These tax cuts have been credited for the economic growth from 1983 to 1990,. . .
  • or The economic growth from 1983 to 1990 is attributed to these tax cuts,. . .
Since the latter would require reconstruction of the rest of the sentence and the former would only need a little tinkering with the rest of the sentence I went with the former.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I added one ref. I am not sure if this is enought for you. Let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still a bit uncomfortable with two books without page numbers referencing "the then largest peacetime expansion of the United States GDP." I'll leave it up for other folks to decide on, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Double check the web link tool and fix the ones that are deadlinked. Otherwise everything looks pretty good as far as sourcing and links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from User:JKBrooks85
  • Support. I rearranged the early life section slightly in order to get the athletics and academics sections together. You probably don't need to consult the link checker all the time — I had just noticed that there was a missing link in there that hadn't been addressed before. Good stuff all around. It's a coherent, understandable, and complete article. There are ample citations, and as far as I can tell, it seems to be a good biography article worthy of being featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I get an opinion on whether NFL fan club team history websites count as WP:RS for WP. In particular can I use http://www.billsbackers.com/JackKemp.htm and http://www.billsbackers.com/CookieGilchrist.htm ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I imagine the main thing to be cautious about is the fact that the site seems to be asking for articles and that the guy who wrote that article in particular doesn't claim any qualifications beyond being a lifelong Bills fan. I don't think that's bad ... just that it probably doesn't stand on its own because of that. If you could find a source that backs up the source, it might work, but I'm not entirely sure how the red tape surrounding WP:RS works. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - wonderful improvement; this is what we want to see in a political biography. Amply referenced, clear, coherent, interesting. Biruitorul (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am glad to get some political support after getting responses from two editors that I know do a lot of sports related work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—The prose is full of bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings. Can't possibly be promoted at present.

  • "Travelled"? US spelling, please.
  • "elective politics"—sounds like surgery. "Public life" would be better, if true. Otherwise, a different epithet.
  • "Kemp is the third of four sons to a father who was a trucking company owner." Um ... "born"? The rest of the sentence isn't the most elegant I've seen.
  • "the entrepreneurial outgrowth of a motorcycle messenger service."—Sounds like a tumour.
  • "His parents, Paul and Frances Kemp,[4] raised their sons in the Wilshire district of Los Angeles,[5] which was a heavily Jewish section of West Los Angeles.[4] He was raised in the Church of Christ, Scientist faith" Now we learn the names of the parents, after that clumsy first sentence in the "Youth" section. The readers will wonder why these two religions are foregrounded? Very abstruse.
    • These religions are foregrounded four reasons noted over the next five paragraphs and then a later political controversy. Keep reading. Usually a reviewer would say, the biography might be improved if you can add breadth like his religion and marital status. He married a woman who brogght him into another faith. This information should be in his personal section, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides." Bizarre wording. And the school seems to have become the them, not the person.
    • I am describing an unusual element of his background that I interpret to mean that he went to the type of high school that had tourist buses driving by with the guide pointing out the window saying that so and so went to high school here and such and such happened while Kemp was inside trying to learn about Thoreau. It is in fact the school I am describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "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.[8][9] Nonetheless, Kemp worked with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles where he learned to embrace diversity and hard work." Logical connection in "Nonetheless" eludes me completely. Seemingly unrelated ideas are jammed together into the one sentence. TONY (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I am painting a picture that this guy 1)lived with rich Jewish kids, 2)went to school with rich Jewish Kids, many of whom became celebirities, and 3) somehow managed to maintain a very down to earth demeanor which placed value on hard work and social responsibility. We are looking at the formative years of a person who nearly achieved the highest offices in our country. To understand how he got so close you must understand his background. I will reconsider my statement to see if I am putting two and two together in ways that are beyond the purpose of WP, but I think I am serving the reader well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose way too much passive voice ... e.g. "considered a social moderate" by whom? writing is generally choppy. needs a review for neutral phrasing ... e.g. "roadblocks in Congress". basically needs a thorough copyediting job before promotion to featured. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • O.K. Choppiness and passive voice are actionable things I can address. I will give it my best over the next day or two. I apologize for the chopiness, but the Time magazine/New York Times research method has me read each article and add a sentence or two with a citation. Unfortunately, most sentences have been simple sentences. I will try to revise for flow in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WRT, social moderate, the lead is written in the uncited form where the important facts are cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Criterion three concerns. Certain FU images appear to have been added in response to a GA review that requested more images (which are not necessary for either GA or FA). The implication seems be that the author didn't really feel the images necessary to begin with and/or non-free inclusion criteria weren't fully considered.
    • Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif, Image:Dolekemp1996.gif and Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg appear to be used solely as eye candy. Why are these necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) to facilitate our understanding? What is their significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) of the campaigns? How does the Time cover “show [a] near miss”? It shows, perhaps, the outcome after a near miss; why would prose alone not be sufficent? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Near miss (Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg) explanation: the text describes how the cover nearly went to the story of life on Mars. Having an inset on the cover of another stroy was unusual in those days. The fact that a second story was inset on the cover means they nearly missed being the cover story. I will clarify the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually do feel that in the case of a contemporary figure with an encyclopedic biography of this length adding a few relevant fair use covers helps the reader maintain image and helps break up the monotony of lengthy text. Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif and Image:Dolekemp1996.gif improve the quality of the article in this regard, IMO. Unless they are determined to be images that should be deleted, they belong here. They only thing that would cause me to change my mind other than being told that they should be deleted would be someone who expands either of these sections to full articles as either a Jack Kemp's 1988 Republican Nomination campaign or a Dole-Kemp 1996 Republican Nominees campaign] article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was not quite sure what to do about User:Tony1's April 6th complaint that the article was troubled by "bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings" because the complaint did not give me much actionable guidance. User:elcobbola's subsequent April 8th complaint of choppiness and passive voice gave me grammatical changes to look for. I spent the whole day attempting to address the latter concerns in this regard and hope this might be what was necessary to converted both parties.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.