Talk:George W. Bush/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA Sweeps: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed. I have already made minor corrections to the article, but have included issues below that I believe need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA.

1. 1 The lead should state what he is doing now that he is out of the presidency.
2. 2 At the beginning of the Presidency section, a brief paragraph detailing his inauguration, a few tidbits about the presidency, and the handover for Obama would be beneficial. As it currently stands, the first mention of his presidency is on economic policy.
3. 3 North Korea section could use an update sentence about the current restart in their nuclear efforts.
4. 4 "On May 10, 2005, Vladimir Arutyunian threw a live hand grenade" It would probably be beneficial to mention what nationality the attempted assassin was.
5. 5 The "Other issues" section has multiple single sentences or brief paragraphs. Consider expanding on the sentences or incorporating them together with other paragraphs.
6. 6 The article bounces back and forth in using "%" or "percent". It would be beneficial to choose one and stick with it.
7. 7 "Views of him within the international community are more negative than previous American Presidents, with France[300] largely opposed to what he advocates and public opinion in Britain, an American ally since World War II, largely against him." Address the citation tag which has been there since December 2008.
8. 8 There are a few instances of some statements followed by five or more inline citations. Try to cut some of these down to three at most (perhaps the most reliable/informative) if possible. The article is large enough as it is, and the extra sources are not helping with the load time.
9. 9 There are multiple dead links/redirects that should be fixed. Consider using the Internet Archive to help you fix them.
10. 10 The Template:Persondata needs to be filled out.
11. 11 This isn't required for GA, but I tagged a few images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you have an account there, consider moving the images over so that other language Wikipedias can use the images.

If the above issue is addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which then can later be renominated at WP:GAN. I will contact the main contributors of the article and its related WikiProjects to ease the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. 1 Done
2. 2 Several other presidential articles don't do this, my read of good article policy doesn't seem to mandate though it is a good idea.
3. 3 This is a BLP about Bush, that information may belong in a section about his presidency, however my read of policy doesn't mandate it here nor does it appear to be a GA criteria requirement.
4. 4 Given the utter failure of the attempt as well as the appearance of a lone madman, I'm unsure that providing any additional information about this man are required. Bush was not in danger, his security was not changed afterwards, the attempt was not repeated.
5. 5 I've looked into that. Unless we are required to remove sourced data if it is in a single sentence paragraph, perhaps to the relevant sections of the Bush Presidency articles, its not worthwhile to do anything with them. In BLP terms, their inclusion is... questionable.
6. 6 Done.
7. 7 I'll find a cite.
8. 8 Multiple editors on this page require a massive amount of cites for information to be included. Any situation where there are 3 plus cites are typically due to situations such as these. My read of GA criteria does not mandate that excessive cites are an issue.
9. 9 I'll dig up 4 cites on those tonight.
10. 10 I'll fill that out, this does not appear to be a GA requirement however.
11. 11 Not a GA requirement, I'll leave it to someone else to handle.

RTRimmel (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Summary looks good. Per WP:LEAD, it should be limited to four paragraphs so perhaps the added statements can be merged into the fourth paragraph.

2. Well I figure there should be something to bridge the results of the election to first talking about his economic policy. For example, Barack Obama's article starts with the announcement of his inauguration, then continues on with the major events of his presidency.

3. Of course I understand we are dealing with BLP here, and that's why I'm attempting to ensure we address the raised issues. These events did occur outside of his presidency, but it may be beneficial for the reader to know that two years later North Korea's nuclear ambitions were restarted. A brief mention of this could work, but it's entirely up to you if it should be mentioned.

4. Despite that, this was still an attempted assassination and he was convicted for it. By providing the nationality readers can see if the attempted assassin was a citizen of Bush's country or from elsewhere. Just because it took place in Georgia may not mean a Georgian attempted it.

5. Can any of them be expanded on or worked into other areas? It is also possible that leaving it as it is will cause it to continue to grow as random editors/IPs add more other details about his presidency. Do you think it should be worked into other sections and/or moved to the articles about his presidency or left as is?

8. It's great to have so many available sources to verify a statement, but having so many citations after a statement appears to break up the flow while reading. Obviously some statements may be disputed and the sources help to combat that, but I figure that some of the strongest sources (most detailed/most reliable sources) could be used to remove one or two occurrences.

9. If you follow the link (may take a while to load), the ones that appear red are dead links.

10. It's not a requirement of the criteria, however it should be used for all biographies. It's simple to fill out and will be helpful for metadata searches.

--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1 Shortened it to 4 paragraphs.

2 I'll review the information and add in a 4 paragraph cited encapsulation of his Presidency. We will need an extension and there is going to be a significant amount of arguments based on POV issues based on my experienced editing every other topic that is in this article.

3 I'm inclined to leave it out but its not that hard to add so boom, we have the reactor restart.

4 The assassin's nationality is of less consequence than his ethnicity in that area, really, but I've added that in. I don't think anyone is going to understand the significance and its not worth putting in sufficient detail to explain in this BLP which is why it was left out initially.

5 They haven't been a problem in the past. Again, I'd rather just delete the sourced information than attempt to expand them as they have marginal influence in a BLP.

8 Several other editors have mandated an unusual number of cited sources for certain topics. For example, when adding in information about the economic crisis, I had to produce an utterly ridiculous number of sources before they would stop deleting the sections because of lack of valid sources. Removing them will ultimately destabilize the article so I'm inclined to keep them because they are not in violation of GA rules. And making the article unstable is a violation.

9 Ah... I see them now. I'll dig up sources for them later tonight.

10 If its not a requirement, it will wait. There is enough necessary stuff to deal with ATM.

RTRimmel (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since progress is being made, I will extend the hold for another week. I'll keep an eye on this page and cross off the rest of the points as they are addressed. I'm glad somebody stepped in to further improve the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Points 2, 5, 7, and 9 still need to be addressed. I filled out the persondata, so don't worry about that. One more week should be sufficient in addressing the remaining issues, I really don't want to have to delist the article. If you need assistance with any of these points let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've written an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the presidency section, as recommended at number two. It starts with his inauguration and briefly overviews the main aspects of his presidency. I disagree that a "handover for Obama" sentence needs to be added; the section is about Bush's presidency, not Obama's, and introducing how he handed over power to Obama in the last two months of the last year of his presidency would be off-topic and provide undue weight to a two-month period of the presidency rather than the full eight years. Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I had mentioned the handover (this was referring to just mentioning that Obama succeeded him) for readers to know who the successor was (mainly for other country readers or really oblivious Americans). The only reason for it to be mentioned is if it is also mentioned that Bush took the reigns from Clinton. It's up to you if you want to mention the predecessor and successor. Good work, I struck through this issue. Only a few more remaining. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing several of the issues. Since the other issues weren't addressed, I went ahead and made the changes. Please review them and correct any errors. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and has a great source of free images. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources and fix all of the citations so they are consistent (I only fixed a handful of them). If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)