Talk:Mike Hudema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Mike Hudema 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.
January 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
Alberta
Alberta Portal
This article is part of the Alberta WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

[edit] Conflict disclosure

I just want to disclose at this point that I am in a potential conflict of interest, as I know Mike reasonably well. I believe that, in writing this article, I have adhered completely to User:Uncle G's [on writing about subjects close to you] (which isn't policy, but which is damned good advice). That said, now that I've created the article I won't make any contentious edits to it; I will participate in any debates on this talk page, however. Sarcasticidealist 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold comments

I think this article is definitely viable for GA, just a few things...

  • The lead section does not summarize the text of the article completely. A paragraph or two would be appropriate. The sentence currently there would be a good start for the paragraph, just a few more details should be added, as I did not get a very full picture of the article's subject. (See here).
  • A more detailed method of citation is recommended at WP:CITE here. As many of the URLs cited here are news articles, it seems appropriate to use the news citation method. Citation templates like {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} might be useful. The article is very well footnoted, it's just the citations themselves are not very thorough.
  • There are a number of short sections (starting with "Anti-war activism) that might be better suited to a consolidated paragraph or two, perhaps under the heading of "Other activism." If there is more information in these sections that simply hasn't been added, then of course my opinion would change.
  • Though this isn't required for a GA, it seems to me that many of the images might be better suited if they were smaller, as they are (to my eyes) disrupting the article's text in some places.

Kakofonous (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of a 24 hour extension on this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. That sounds fine. Kakofonous (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I've incorporated the changes you suggested, but please let me know if there's anything further that I should do (whether to meet GA standards or for any other reason). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is now of GA quality. Kakofonous (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Definitely.
2. Factually accurate?: So many sources! Sorry I made you go through all of the citations and reformat them.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Great choices, all of them free.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)