Talk:Richard Lieber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Richard Lieber was a nominee for Social sciences and society good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 20, 2007.
December 8, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
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]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] GA Review

What would it take for this article to achieve "Good" status?--Bedford 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is a very good start, but does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. Specific areas of concern are listed below:

  • The article needs {{Infobox person}} added to the top-right corner. It should also have an image of the person featured as well.Y Done
  • The lead section is too short. It should provide an adequate summary of the article. Please see WP:LEAD for guidelines and tips on expanding this section.
  • References should be formatted according to WP:CITE. External link URLs used as references should have full citation info with them (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved), so that if the URL ever becomes inaccessible, the reference is not rendered useless and can still be used to verify information cited.
  • I'm a little concerned about overdependence on few references here; for example, the Pugsley reference, which is used quite a bit (citing everything in the first **long** paragraph under 'Beginning state parks'?). It would be nice to see a wider variety of references used.
  • Be careful about overly broad statements like, "he could be considered the most powerful spokesman in the United States for the conservation of natural resources." While it is sourced, which is good, it's a pretty broad assertion, and several editors could argue WP:NPOV issues with it. Plus, one could probably make a pretty good argument that Al Gore might be a bit of a more powerful spokesman in this area, and certainly more well known on the national level than some guy from Indiana,...
  • I would also strongly encourage taking another look at the guidelines at WikiProject Biography for more important items that should be included in a biographical article.

Hope this helps improve the article. Like I said, it's a good start. But more work is certainly needed! Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)