Talk:George H. W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George H. W. Bush article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article George H. W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
George H. W. Bush is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Succession Box Order

Should the Succession box be reorganized to follow chonological order? Mikebar (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest living president

Is it really necessary to post the fact that he is the oldest living US president in the introduction? Seems a bit like trivia to me. --Inhuman14 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way he is not the oldest living president. Jimmy Carter is still very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.87.144 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter is younger by almost 4 months. Mohummy 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He's also the oldest living former vice president. Shouldn't that be added as well?ElNico (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he also happens to be the oldest living former-vice president current-president son of a president. Should we add that too? In my opinion, the whole thing is useless factiods that serve only as amusing Jeapordy questions. And in the introduction no less! I'm with Inhuman. Get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.53.15 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "'I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens"

I've removed this quote, attributed to GHW Bush, as a blp concern, in response to comment on Talke: Separation of Church and State about its dubious sourcing. -- Vary | Talk 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The same quote was also in the Quotes section. I've removed it for the same reason. WP:BLP and possible WP:RS. The only person making the claim for the quote is a political activist, we should have at least some other confirmation of the quote. All the other quotes are verifiable but this one is not. Mohummy (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks. -- Vary | Talk 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

I really admire George Bush, and feel that his article can be 100% better than it currently is. That's why I've tagged it for needing additional citations. The sections "Panama" and "1988 presidentical campaign" don't include any citations (they are especially needed with all the claims being made in the '88 campaign section). Also, the "Presidency" section only includes events dealing with foreign policy and hardly any on what went on domestically. As well as that, more should be added in the "post-presidency" section. A few months ago, I added about the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award and his eulogies for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. Finally, the "quotes" section isn't nessecary and doesn't follow MOS guidelines, as quotes should be put in Wikiquote. Anyway, I think those are some very good places to start and I definitely look forward to helping out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Signature

I have an autograph of George Bush in my possession. The signature picture up right now is pretty low resolution. If we decide we would rather have a higher resolution image (which I'd be happy to create), just let me know. Thanks --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Let's try it out. Happyme22 (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early life

The lead paragraph in Early life section sounds pretty disjointed. Specifically, there is not much information on why the fact that the Victorian house is privately owned is notable needs explaination. Kushalt 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article could use some major clean up. It's on my list to help, but I've been pretty busy. Happyme22 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some problem with the images...

An image appeared to be broken; I edited the section and the preview showed it without any problem, but it remained broken after I saved the edit. I took a look at the edit history and another editor had the same problem, but apparently with another image. I don't really understand this. Herunar (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And neither do I. I presume the image is now fixed? If not you might want to contact techincal support, or something. Happyme22 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Objectivity in Entire Article!

This article lacks objectivity, with words like "Interestingly" and accusations like "he alienated." And what's this comment about him "Playing Tennis" while Reagan was undergoing surgery? That's sounds awfully critical to me, and not like an objective information piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyboroda (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this article is, in my opinion, awful and needs major clean up. Happyme22 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to believe that Bush spent the "majority" of his 8 hours as acting president playing tennis. 4+ hours of tennis? I didn't see it as criticism though; an acting president really shouldn't do much governing outside of a serious emergency. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan assassination attempt

There's should be some mention about how Bush handled himself during during March 30th, 1981. Things like, his refusal to land on the White House lawn & his address to the press on the Government runnings smoothly. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I feel this article needs major work. Anything you wish to add/remove to clean it up, please do (but be sure to include citations). Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contents box vandaism

From the contents section, item 12... "what's up Bobby"... someone care to investigate/ change it? The user should be dealt with.--24.131.209.180 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you reffering to? Happyme22 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect date

He married on january 6, 1945 not 1954 the information needs to be edited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.69.198 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
No, not really. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
I don't usually. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
I'm not a member of very many WikiProjects, so not particularly. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed my two cents. I'm not sure if my answers are very helpful to you, though. Thanks for doing this! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acting President in infobox

At least twice this year the Acting President info has been added to then removed from the Infobox. Should it be there and if so, where is the best place to put it? It is in the main body of the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article, and as far as I'm concerned, that's the only place it should be. But User:Energizer07 reverted me here and at Dick Cheney, citing Wikipedia policy. I dropped the user a line and am awaiting a response. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's been five days, and I've haven't received a response from User:Energizer07. The user deleted my query as well. Thus I am acting in my best judgement by removing it from this page and that of Dick Cheney, because it was one (or in Cheney's case two) day in the life of the Vice President; in fact, it wasn't even a full day. This detail is best left for the body of the article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As a point of Interest, Dick Cheney's infobox only includes one of the two times he was Acting President of the United States. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think pro forma trivia like this belongs in the infobox. It should be in the article. If the person actually did something Presidential, such as if the President had a stroke and the Vice-President filled out his term as Acting President, that would be different. As a point of comparison, in many U.S. States, if the Governor is out of the state the Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor or Governor For A Day. In most states such an event wouldn't even be encyclopedic. In routine cases like surgery, it's only encyclopedic for the US Presidency because it is so rare.
If this issue becomes contentious, it may be time to do a Request for Comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, Does anyone agree with me when I say the fact that during his tenure as VP Cheney was sworn in as President for a two hour period remain in the info box?--Energizer07 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:George H. W. Bush#Acting President in infobox. Happyme22 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree with Happyme22 that it should not be included. "Acting president" for two hours simply isn't worth mentioning in the infobox. - auburnpilot talk 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify something; I think that everyone is a little bit confused when it comes to my actions and to the actions of User:Energizer07, so please allow me straighten out the facts. Energizer07 first added that Bush Sr. and Cheney served as acting president of the U.S. to the infobox of the respective articles, and claimed that there is Wikipedia policy to support the additions and thus should stay in the infobox. Well I disagreed with him because: 1.) it was one (or in Cheney's case, two) day(s) of an eight year vice presidency (in fact, they weren't even full days) and that is placing undue weight on that single day; 2.) the edit on Cheney's page only mentioned that he served as acting president (for less than a day) in 2002, but neglected to mention that he also served as acting president (for less than a day) in 2007. I contacted the user on April 20 and asked if he could point me to Wikipedia policy that supported the addition; he deleted my message and did not respond. I waited for six days for a response, and receiving none, I reverted the edits on April 26th citing no response from the user. Well apparently he was upset (see the message here) and has made it seem as if I the one that has failed to abide by Wikipedia policy. Abandoning his claim that the edits are supported by policy, he now says that it is cited material, so it should stay. Well that is not an adequate reason and I responded to him here, outlining my arguments and why his assertions are incorrect. He also stated that "Cheney was sworn in as President of the US" and that makes it notable; well that's factually incorrect. President Reagan, and later President GW Bush, signed a piece of paper that authorized Vice President Bush (and later VP Cheney) to serve as acting president while the serving president was under anesthesia. The two men were not sworn in, but rather authorized; that's big difference.

I appologize for the long message, but I wanted to communicate to everyone that any assertions he makes about me regarding my "vandalism", as he recently put it, are incorrect. I stand by my position that an event that occured for a few hours is not notable enough for the infobox, but I will abide by the decision of the consensus. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would be shocked if infoboxes were covered by one of Wikipedia's policies. What goes in infoboxes would be covered by a guideline not a policy. More likely, they wouldn't be covered by a guideline but rather common practice and convention. Second, assuming that "important offices should be in an officeholder infobox" is covered by a guideline, and I'm not saying it is, guidelines have room for obvious exceptions. See my comments on Acting Governor For A Day above.
The only relevant content policies I can find are Ignore All Rules which gives us collectively, by consensus permission to ignore the content policies if deemed appropriate, and the content policies. The most appropriate enforcement policy I can find is consensus, which is what we are trying to do in this discussion.
Looking at the content policies one at a time:
  • Attack pages - irrelevant, this is not an attack page
  • Biographies of Living Persons - no: Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.
This policy says that since it is verifiable, neutral, and meets other requirements, it is okay to state that he was Acting President. It arguably requires that to maintain WP:NPV the information must be in the article, but that is a weak argument. It in no way requires that the information be in the the infobox.
  • Naming Conventions: irrelevant, there is no naming convention dispute
  • Neutral Point of View: See Biographies of Living Persons for applicability to having this data in the article. It does not require data in the infobox.
  • No Original Research: irrelevant, this is not original research
  • Verifiability, or rather lack thereof: irrelevant, the fact is verified
  • What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While this data is encyclopedic and this section of WP:NOT should not be used as grounds to delete the data, the spirit of this section is that some information is more important than other information and, as a corollary, some information should be highlighted in infoboxes and other information should not be. We use consensus to determine which is which.
In summary, I can find nothing in any obviously-relevant policy that requires this information to be in an infobox.
My recommendation:
  1. Assuming I didn't miss anything when looking at the policies, drop the policy claim.
  2. Assert a "we should do it because it is a good idea" claim. If you think it's a good idea by all means say so and say why.
  3. Have a debate and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus does NOT mean everyone agrees that the outcome is correct, only that the outcome will be respected. If no consensus can be reached, use input from the request for comments and elsewhere.
Just as a personal opinion: On an issue that is relatively inconsequential such as this, if the outcome of the discussion is lopsided but a person on the minority side does not concede the issue, it says more about the editor than the issue. Of course this statement doesn't apply if editors are nearly evenly divided on the issue.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Devlopment

I'm pretty sure there is an "L" in "development -- Bush started the Bush-Overby Oil Deveopment company in 1951 -- Just one of those things that drives me crazy. 68.106.61.240 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 4.25.2008. I don't have a username.

I've fixed it. Thanks a lot for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friends

U need best friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.122.232 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Can you please elaborate on what you are referring to? Happyme22 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

[edit] Acting president in infobox, part II - RFC

There is concern over whether the fact that George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney serving as acting president of the United States (Cheney twice) is notable enough to merit inclusion in the infobox. Please see the discussion above for additional background information. !! time=02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is concern over whether the fact that George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney serving as acting president of the United States (Cheney twice) is notable enough to merit inclusion in the infobox. Please see the discussion above for additional background information.


RFC closed due to lack of activity. Text of RFC was removed by an editor active in editing this page and restored as an archive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not reviewed* 1
2. Factually accurate?: Not reviewed* 2
3. Broad in coverage?: Not reviewed* 3
4. Neutral point of view?: Not reviewed* 4
5. Article stability? FAIL 5
6. Images?: Not reviewed* 6
If you have not significantly contributed to this article please review 1-4 and 6 and mark them PASSED. Whether you are editing the article or not, if you find a reason to FAIL one if the criteria please mark it FAIL and add your comments.
1Insert reviewer comments here
2Insert reviewer comments here
3Insert reviewer comments here
4Insert reviewer comments here
5Article is unstable. When the current edit dispute over whether to include Bush's short term as Acting President in the infobox is resolved 5 will change to PASS, assuming the article is otherwise stable. If you see other evidence of article instability please add it below.
6Insert reviewer comments here

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

I'm not sure, but shouldn't the ongoing content dispute qualify the article to a direct quick-fail? the "Article stability" is obviously not "pass-worthy". - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly but my hope is this is the only failure and that it will be resolved within a day or two. Even if you are right, there's no harm in doing it the long way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
True, but I would like to point you to FA Barack Obama, which was fully protected for editing warring last month at least four times, and was not deemed unstable nor delisted. This is a minor dispute and should not fail the stability immediately.
That said, I am considering giving up on the acting pres in infobox until a later date at least, seeing as there is no concensus either way and Wikipedia does not decide by voting. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think this could be considered as failing the stability criteria. The dispute is over one line in the infobox, and has no effect on the quality of the article. Also, I don't believe an edit war on an FA or GA would lead to a reassessment; I've simply never seen that done. - auburnpilot talk 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there isn't a concensus on whether to include them or not; what do we do now? Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I prefer not to see the acting president notations in infoboxes, if they are there and consistent across all Vice Presidents who acted as President, I won't block consensus. This is a pretty trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that there is a concensus: User:AuburnPilot, User:davidwr, and myself, User:Happyme22, feel that the information is not necessary for the infobox(es) on both pages. In response to your phrase, David, regarding all vice presidents who acted as president, it was only *officially* GHWB and Cheney, so those are *officially* the only two that we have to worry about (as they were the only two to be handed the temporary power by a signed statement per the 25th amendment). Per a concensus on this talk page, I am removing the information from both pages. Happyme22 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have taken Good Article Nomination off of hold and am archiving this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Good Article Nomination

I have taken the nomination off hold. A disinterested reviewer will probably come along in the next few days and accept or reject the nomination. If he rejects it, he should provide a reason. If you have not edited this article for content and happen to see this message, consider reviewing this and other Good Article nominations. To those of us who have edited this article, consider reviewing other Good Article nominations. See the top of this talk page for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 40th vice president

wouldn't he be the 40th vice president and not the 43rd, because reagan was the 40th persident —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Evil Dog (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, because some presidents have had multiple vice presidents (in event of a resignation, etc.). As an example, Richard Nixon had Spiro Agnew and later Gerald Ford. Good question, though. Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
ok thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Evil Dog (talk • contribs) 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB Link

I added the IMDB link back to the article. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with this link. There's no criteria that says someone has to have "acted" to have the link listed in the external links section. The surprisingly long list of appearances in films and television is informative and useful without having to maintain the list in the text of the article. I see no reason why the link shouldn't be included. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me. I just found it a bit odd to include this because Bush was not an actor and did not act in any films. But I guess documentaries are okay. Happyme22 (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review, May 2008

I have picked this up for review and will leave my initial comments shortly. As I understand it, the article previously failed GA on a stability issue that has since been resolved, and has not been fully reviewed against the other GA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it was put on hold then taken off hold when the stability issue was resolved. Other issues were not reviewed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to your comments! Happyme22 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Review

The article is informative and for the most part well-presented. The significant issues which I noted after reading through can be summarized under these headings:-

  • General style: There are numerous awkwardly-phased passages, some wayward punctuation, and over-use of the semi-colon. I have indicated many of the clumsy sentences in the review below, but there may well be others.
  • Missing citations: On a number of occasions, as indicated below, I felt that specific citations were needed for statements made in the text.
  • Sources: I haven’t checked to see if all the links to on-line source material are live. One that I did check (see below) was definitely dead. Suggest you check them all.

My section-by-section comments are as follows:-

  • Lead:

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • "including being" – two adjacent –ing words at the start of the article is a big clunk. Suggest you reword.
    • The comma after "at the age of 18" changes the meaning of the sentence and needs to be deleted.
    • "successful" operation sounds like POV
    • Trivial, I know, but surely he’s the oldest living former president? And, since there are only three of them, is this noteworthy?
  • Early years: You begin this section with your one and only reference to him as "George". Was there a reason? He becomes "Bush" again in the next sentence.

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • World War II: I had a lot of problems with this section.

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • "decided that he wanted to…" could be "decided to…"
    • "He did just that" sounds too informal for an encyclopedia article
    • Within the space of a few lines you have "lieutenant junior grade", "Lieutenant Junior Grade" and "Lieutenant Jr grade". Consistency required.
    • Antiaircraft needs a hyphen
    • You need to specify that Delaney and white were both killed in this action.
    • The verb "cannibalise" means "to use serviceable parts from one machine or vehicle to repair another". If you mean that the Japanese ate their captives you will have to say so. This citation link, to a London Daily Telegraph source, was dead when I tried it so I could not follow up this astounding story.
When I implemented that citation, the link worked fine. But you are correct that it does not anymore, and I guess that's how the internet works :) There are other citations to it but none that I would deem very reliable as of now, so I am going to remove it. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don’t know why you start the final paragraph "The Lieutenant Jr grade" when you mean Bush.
  • Marriage/college

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Something seems to be missing: "…met Babe Ruth before a game his senior year".
I don't think anything is missing... It's trivial, yes, but interesting that one of out future presidents was a baseball star who met Babe Ruth.
    • "…tapped for membership" needs explaining to non-Americans (like me).
  • Oil: The 3rd sentence is too long, needs to be made into two.

Y Done with other changes. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Early political career: This heading covers events until 1980 when he ran for vice-president. Is it all referable as his "early" political career?
Y Done - I've renamed the section
  • Congressional years

Y Done, with other minor changes. Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • 3rd para: You’ve already said who Yarborough was, you don’t have to say "Democratic Senator" again. Just "Yarborough" will do.
    • "With Yarborough defeated.." – you don’t have to say again "in the primary".
    • You don’t explain why Nixon’s support for Bush waned after Yarborough’s defeat. Is there a story here?
  • UN Ambassador

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • The first sentence is a good example of where you need to have two sentences rather than a semi-colon division.
    • Who heavily criticised Bush’s lack of foreign policy experience?
I can't find anything about anyone criticizing his lack of experience, and I think that was thrown in there simply because of the lack of criticisms until that part of his life (although up until then, there wasn't a lot to criticize him for). Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Republican Chairman

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • "As the UN ambassador, Bush formally requested…" Surely he had ceased to hold that post by then? Why would it be a UN ambassador’s job to do this, anyway?
    • You’ve used "did just that" again.
  • China Envoy: The parenthetical part of this long sentence should be a sentence in its own right, not a bracketed appendage.

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • CIA Director

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • There are no citations in the first para, which makes significant statements
And I cannot find any reliable citations relating to the claims, so it probably best to remove them. Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Senate Church committee" needs explaining (people might think of it as a religious body rather than a committee chaired by Sen. Church)
    • Shouldn’t you say "alleged" illegal and unauthorised activities.
  • Other positions

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Excuse my ignorance, but what is an “adjunct” professor? Unknown term in UK academia.
It means part-time. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1980 Presidential campaign

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • "Bush had decided in the late 1970s that he was going to run for president in 1980". Citation needed
    • Second sentence in para 2 needs to specify that "he" is Bush.
    • "Bush was surprised…" Citation needed
  • Vice President

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • First sentence contains a non-sequitur. Also, "naturally deferential" needs a citation
    • "Mrs Bush found the funeral largely beneficial.." Which one? Or maybe should be plural?
    • Spelling: occurrences
    • 2nd para would begin better if date was transferred to start of sentence, as: "On March 30 1981, early into the administration…."
    • First sentence of 4th para could do with a citation
    • Last sentence of this section is very confusing. Should the "had" after "Rather" be deleted. And "amidst the beginning" is very awkward phrasing.
  • Presidential Campaign

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • "Although" seems the wrong word to begin the section
    • Was New Hampshire a primary or a caucus?
Primary. I've changed it. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Bush "continued seeing victory"? Seeking, perhaps?
I actually think seeing is correct in this instance, as it implies that he continued winning the primaries. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Presidency

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • In the context of this section the words "succeeding Ronald Reagan as president of the United States" are redundant
    • "leading to successes in both…" is POV. Indeed, the Gulf War success is qualified later in this article.
  • Economy

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Three times is not a hyphenated term
    • "Angrily perceived as a means of revenge…" What was "angrily perceived"? Some rewording necessary, I think.
    • "Scrambling" – means what, in the political sense?
In this instance it means "working quickly", as in to put something together
    • There’s no word "layed" that I know of. Should be "laid", and it should be "which laid off" not "and laid off"
  • Major initiatives: Spelling “quarrelled”

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Panama

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • "additional troops to Panama to heed the way…"?
    • This sentence clunks: "Noriega suppressed an October military coup attempt and massive protests in Panama against Noriega".
  • Gulf War: "More charged that Bush should have continued the attack and pushed Hussein’s army back to Baghdad, and remove him from power". Grammar goes awry at the end, and who were the "more"?

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Soviet Union

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Trivial point, but what’s "between" December 2 and 3? Should the word be “during”?
"During" doesn't sound correct to me, as "between" means it continued through Dec. 2 and 3. Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 Bush and Gorbachev declared a US-Soviet strategic partnership". To what does "Soviet" refer to in this sentence. since this is after the dissolution of the USSR?
Correct - nice catch! Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • NAFTA

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • 2nd para starts "This....". What is "this"?
    • The central portion of this paragraph has significant statements that need citation.
    • Isn’t Guttierez the present US Commerce secretary, not a Washington Post staff writer?
  • 1992 campaign

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • There’s probably a wikipedia rule about using contractions like "wouldn’t"
    • Last para: "He raised taxes.." Who he?
  • Past president

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • They retired to their home, not at' their home
    • (Incidentally, in UK, George HW Bush is usually referred to as “Bush senior”, or “the first Bush”, not by his middle intials)
  • Presidential library

Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • 3rd para begins with typo
    • There is variable capitalization of program/Program
    • It’s a pity to end an article like this with trivia, but it’s not really important.

I've not had the chance to look closely at the images - I'll do that soon. Obviously, much work has gone into this article, and I hope that my comments will be seen as positive ways towards improving it, rather than as criticism or point-scoring. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are not taken as criticisms. I want to thank you very much, Brian, for taking the time to provide us with such a detailed list. I have completed all of your recommendations above. Those that I disagree with changing (which I think were only three) I've noted as well. Hopefully the article is GA-fit now. Again Brian, thank you. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me congratulate you on the speed with which you took up my points. I'm generally happy with how you've dealt with them, but I'm left with a few niggles, also one or two issues relating to images and sources.

  • I'm sorry I didn't clarify my point about the Babe Ruth reference. I'm not saying it shouldn't be here, its interesting. It's the wording that I was querying. The half-sentence: "as the team captain, Bush met Babe Ruth before a game his senior year" would not be accepted as grammatical in written Brit-English. It would have to be "...before a game during his senior year". If you assure me that your version is acceptable as written American English, I'll take your word for it.
  • There'll be thousands of Brits like me reading this article who won't know that adjunct means part-time. Could you put it in brackets for us?
  • In the Economy subsection you now have "Perceived as a means of revenge, Republican congressmen defeated Bush's proposals". I know what you mean, but the grammar is not quite right. "Perceiving a means of revenge, Republican..." etc., would be correct.
  • Also in the Economy subsection, I think it should be "number of workers" rather than "amount" of workers—I didn't spot this first time round.
  • Panama section: You haven't dealt with my query concerning the use of "heed", as in "troops to heed the way for the upcoming invasion. Heed means listen to, pay attention to; it doesn't have the sense of "prepare". Could you choose a word that more clearly gives the meaning you need?
  • The images are good and well-chosen to illustrate many aspects of Bush's life. Just a couple of points: Is it possibe to date the picture of Bush with Eisenhower? And, in the Panama picture caption you refer to Operation Just Cause without having mentioned this name for the operation in the text. A brief note in the text would be helpful.
  • With the exception of the one I picked up earlier, all the source links look good, although [27] requires me to pay a fee to access it, and [46] and [47] refer to other Wikipedia articles, which might be frowned on at FAC if you take the article there.
  • I notice that you are using mdashs with spaces around them. The proper form is without spaces—as in this sentence. Again, this is more of an FAC point.I haven't done an audit for MoS compliance; there are no obvious major violations that I can see.

If you can get back to me on the above points I think we can conclude the business quite quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I believe I addressed all of the points. Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA promotion

I am promoting this article to GA. It is a comprehensive, well-illustrated biographical article which meets all the GA criteria. All points raised in the review process were dealt with by the editors satisfactorily—this process is detailed on this page. It certainly has the makings of a future featured article, but before its nomination I would recommend a thorough copyedit; issues relating to punctuation and sentence construction may need further attention. I would also suggest a careful audit of MoS issues.

Congratulations to the editors for producing a very worthy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)