Wikipedia

Talk:Jesse Jackson Jr./Archive 1

< Talk:Jesse Jackson Jr.
Latest comment: 16 years ago by TonyTheTiger in topic GA review
Archive 1

GA review

Latest comment: 16 years ago91 comments2 people in discussion

I have picked up this article for review, and will provide detailed comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Review comments follow

It is clear that a great deal of work has gone into this article in terms of the collection of facts. There are, however, problems with the article that make me wonder if it was nominated for GA prematurely. There are numerous typos which should have been picked up. There are structural problems, particularly in the “Background” section, and some very awkward and wordy prose throughout the article, which should have been sorted out by copyediting. The grammar is suspect in places, and there are POV issues which may be related to choice of sources.

At present my detailed review only covers the first half of the article, but this has produced sufficient problems for me to seek a response from the nominator/editors. The issues arising from the second part of the article are likely to be “more of the same”. In my view, rather more than cosmetic surgery will be required to bring the article to GA standard, though I am prepared to put the article on hold if the editors wish, if they think they can do all that is necessary within seven days. An alternative might be to accept a fail at this time, and spend a lot more time in getting the article right.

  • Lead:

**The lead is not a proper summary of the whole article

****You've improved the lead and dealt with most of my issues. The point about the "not only but also" sentence was that it sounded non-neutral, even if it is justifiable. To show what I mean, I suggest the following re-wording of the paragraph in question: Although Jackson is viewed as a liberal like his father, he is perceived differently, as more moderate and low key. In his 40% white Congressional district he has generated broad-based support which has repeatedly earned him reelection by 4-1 and 5-1 margins. Jackson is considered less brash than his father, and has developed a reputation for good manners, decorum and propriety. I don't think this changes your meaning in any way, but it has a rather more detached feel, as befits an encyclopedia article. It also loses the unnecessary repetition of a phrase.Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

******The main difference is that my version avoids duplication of phrases. You still have repetition of "low key". You may want to take that out. Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Background: This section was difficult to take in—far too many facts, presented in an unorganised way. It rushes from family sibling information to details of education, early political activity, football prowess—and that’s just the first paragraph! A lot of the rest of the information in the section, that relating to his mature political career (his relationship with Obama, for instance), belongs much later in the article. Some stuff could easily be deleted altogether. At the very least you should divide into subsections (e.g. family background, education, early political activity, marriage etc).

Note also the following specifics:-

    • 2nd para begins: “Jackson acknowledges he is a has had the….” This para, incidentally, is one I think could be reduced to a simple statement that, in his political career, he has enjoyed bi-partisan friendships
      • I guess I should ask that you review this with an eye toward eventual FA pursuits. I do not think that a featured article will omit a section on political allies and social friends. I think inquiring minds would want to know such details. It would of course be more succinct to cut it to a sentence that he had bipartisan friends, but I do not think that is the long-run best encyclopedic direction because the pool of secondary sources finds it notable to mention specifical allies and foes, we should do so herein. The real question is where to do so not whether to do so, IMO. Advice is welcome on this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My advice is this. The article is long – nearly 6,000 words of prose. If you develop it for FAC it will get longer. If (when) Obama becomes president the impact on Jackson Jr’s political life may mean extending the article further. So don’t overburden the present article with unnecessary detail. Unless his friendships with the congressmen you mention are to be followed up later, I recommend the simple statement I suggested above – though his early relationship with George W should is certainly worth keeping. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • His article is currently 35.9 KB and 5854 words of readable prose. For a politician this is no where near the limits on WP:SIZE (see  Harry S. Truman,  Franklin Roosevelt or  Theodore Roosevelt). Currently the bounds are being tested at WP:FAC by Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have chopped Jack Kemp from 62.6 KB to 58.3 to retest this bound at WP:FAC after it finishes at WP:PR (P.S. if you like politics you might want to chime in at his PR). Of course Jackson's career is young and he could have more than another generation of political service to account for. However, SIZE says that problems begin when articles are "much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB". Current convention seems to be that the line in the sand is drawn at 10000 words and 60KB. WP:SUMMARY points to Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information in this regard. Basically, Jackson's article has not grown to the point where daughter articles are appropriate and the information is not so irrelevant as to be unencyclopedic nonsense. There is relevance to this section. For example, there is still some mathematical possibility Hillary could be the next President, in which case a section on their relationship might be relevant. In fact, Jackson could be a cabinet candidate for either Democrat. I think the information contained helps the reader to better understand who Jackson is. I have never seen an article about his father talking about Republican friends, for example. If you don't mind, I would opt to leave this information as it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, you asked my advice. I think it inappropriate to use the lengths of articles on former presidents as a yardstick for articles on a congressman in the relatively early stages of his career, but it's not just a question of length, its also a matter of readability. I'm talking now not just about this paragraph in this section, but generally. By cramming the article with so many facts, you risk turning away the general reader. You can surely present an accurate portrait of Jackson Jr by careful selection of material. As mentioned below, I found the section on the 2001-06 period indigestible - too much information, too much detail. It exhausted me! I wish we could see eye to eye on this matter, but there it is. I suggest we work together to resolve what we can, and come back to this issue later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You are entirely correct on the point that Dead Presidents and sitting seventh term Congressmen are not equal in terms of notable accomplishments. However, in terms of easily accesssible notable facts Hillary may beat almost every subject of a WP bio (check out the length of this daughter article) and Jackson beats all those dead guys because Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Atlantic Monthly, USA Today only go back to the 80s online. The point is not a consideration of who is deserving of space. That is not really how WP works. This is a volunteer thing. I want to work on my Congressman regardless of whether half of all American Presidents need more help. I don't want to go to the stacks and research Millard Fillmore even though he is probably the first or second most important politician (Grover Cleveland) from where I grew up (Buffalo). Jack Kemp was more my style because I could find everything online quickly (from the political perspective). It is even doubtful Jr. should have a longer article than his dad. Jesse is getting my time because I enjoy learning about him and the task of creating a full article for him is manageable. I don't want to have research arcane books or even read a dozen modern books (Donald Trump). I like guys I can research almost entirely online. Let's get away from who deserves space and time. The proper thing to do once we establish that 60KB of content is within reason is to analyze each fact and say whether it is an encyclopedic contribution to his bio. Then look at the collection of facts and determine if it is usefully organized. Then analyze whether it is an appropriate length. I am fairly certain whatever we put together will be less than 40KB. So we really just need to look at our facts and say whether they are encyclopedic and organized. I need your patience and assistance in this regard. Now that all the pubs are available free online, it will not be long before most high quality GA and FAs for modern politicians will be 30-60KB. Let's just look at content and ignore length. I guess after all that hot air I am repeating what you said: "I suggest we work together to resolve what we can, and come back to this issue later."—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

**3rd para: The sentence “His father was often courting the next opportunity to get in front of the television cameras” is quite offensive towards Jesse Sr. I know you’ve qualified it by “according to some accounts”, but it doesn’t read like an objective statement. See similar comments re lead section.

      • Regretfully, I must say that some articles I have quoted from I omitted references like his father was nicknamed "Jetstream Jesse" for his pursuits of the next headline opportunity. What I have included in the article is much tamer and more neutral than describing his father's nicknames and antics in detail. How do you think I should proceed in this light? This is an outspoken family and controversial statements will arise in biographical detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

**4th para: Typo in first line. Also: “Jackson’s district was 65% black and 35% white…” – only one percentage necessary, surely? It goes on “…as well as one-third suburban when he first assumed responsibility for it. Many of the suburban constituents have moved from the city. After the 2000 redistricting Jackson’s 650,000-constituent district remains vastly minority”. I’m sorry, but this is bad prose, and an incredibly wordy way of saying that he represents a predominantly black district.

      • Those sentences present two facts. 1. in 1995 his district was vastly minority. 2. in 2002 after the redistricting it was vastly minority. As a side note, before the redistricting he was not my congressman. Also, please refer to the 2nd congressional district link to see how much the district has changed over time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I’m pretty confused by all this. First, the term “vastly minority” is imprecise; I am guessing it to mean “mainly black”. Otherwise, what does it mean? If that’s what it means, then the 1995 figures of 65% black, 35% white, certainly indicate a predominantly black district, but hardly “vastly”, which suggest 90% or 95%. You don’t quote percentages after the 2002 redistricting, but in the lead you say: “In his 40% white district…” So it’s slightly less predominately black, or less “vastly minority” than it was. Unless you can specify the changes that have taken place in the composition of the district, my objection stands – he represents a district that was, and is, predominantly black, and it isn’t necessary to say more. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • In truth neither “vastly minority” nor "predominantly black" tells the reader it has been 60-65% black. Both are equally problematic in terms of precision. I am not sure what you are suggesting I do. See current modification and provide an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
            • What I was suggesting you do is say in a single short sentence that the 2nd district was, and remains, "predominantly black" or, if you like, "60-65% black". As you've reorganised the material I can't find where this is now, but I'm sure I'll find it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

**6th/7th paras: The frat information is over-detailed and fairly trivial. So is the two homes information in the last para. And I don’t think you need spell out “ Illinois’s 2nd congressional district” in full every time you mention it.

      • I have sectioned all the personal stuff out. I would truly prefer to leave remaining details in for and obtain a broader FAC perspective on its relevance to an in-depth article. I did shorten the 2nd district reference.—TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you may come to regret retaining too much trivial detail when you come to prepare the article for FAC.

****General comment on Background section: I see you’ve put some material into a Personal section. A good idea, but this information mainly relates to his mature life, and would be better appearing much later in the article, to preserve the chronology. I would suggest you call the section “Personal life”, and put it after Committee Assignments. The contents of the last 3 paragraphs of the remaining Background section also relate to his mature life, and could go into this Personal life section. The first paragraph deals with his education. So, I think, do away with the Background heading altogether, have a section called Education, and put the Personal life section towards the end of the article, where it belongs chronologically. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

******The chronology looks right, now. One small suggestion: Make the Experience heading "Early experiences". That would be spot-on. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


*Political Career – Early years

    • First para is mainly details of his education rather than the early years of his political career. There is an awkward time jump between first and second sentences – the milk crate speech to the military academy. Also, President-elect is a fully linkable term, preferable to the half-link you’ve got.
    • Also in 1st para: In referring to degrees the proper usage is master’s, not masters. Also, a typo in penultimate line – there, not their.
    • 2nd para: “involved in his father’s international affairs” Surely affairs is the wrong word here? There is a further typo (Jackson brothers needs plural). And there is a problem with the sentence beginning “At the time, the younger Jackson was known as a well-spoken and compelling personality…” etc. It’s the same problem as mentioned above, giving a non-neutral feel in spite of the citation,. I would suggest that you could say “…the younger Jackson was reportedly well-spoken, with a compelling personality capable of carrying any of….” Etc
    • 3rd para: You say Representative Jackson shared the stage with Nelson Mandela. When did this event occur? If before 1996, then Jackson wasn’t a Representative then. Also, terms like “athletic hiring” and “equitable minority hiring” need some explanation to non-Americans.
  • 1995 election:

**1st para: “Sandi” is too informal as a reference to his mother (sorry, wife)

    • 2nd para: “the Democratic field included”, not “had included”.
    • 2nd para: His “positive” campaign messages – feels POV. It’s cited to what appears to be a very pro-Jackson source.
      • It is hard to call the source Pro-Jackson because this is arguably the third most important local Daily Newspaper in the third largest market in the country. We basically either say we accept Daily newpapers as WP:RS or not. In this case I think we do. Then in politics you either campaign positive (I am good vote for me) or negative (He is bad vote for me). His campaign was positive. I don't really think there is much of an issue here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Your point accepted - though I think that the general issue of the relabilty of newspapers as sources is a lot more complicated than you suggest. But that's not at issue now.
    • 3rd para: The Al Gore reference is confusing. Who was Al Gore’s father, and when r= did AG win this election in his father’s shadow?

**4th para. The second sentence is long, unwieldy, and dubious grammatically. Also, the Mel Reynolds information should be given when you first mention him. You should say who Gingrich was, rather than relying on the link (House Speaker Newt Gingrich).

**Quote: The Jackson 1996 citation should be outside the ornamental quote marks.

I will await the response to the above before continuing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would accept a seven day challenge. I will give it a shot if you will work with me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Review comments continuing. I am fixing typos as I find them, rather than reporting them. Also, don't take the 7-day limit as absolute. If we are fairly close to agreement at that stage we'll extend a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*Early congressional career section

*2000 election section

  • 2001-2006 section: Tony, this section is a nightmare to read. Far too many facts, in no particular order, one after the other, confusing prose, over-reliance on links to explain who people or events were. You don't need to mention absolutely everything that Jackson did. And the over-detailing! You don't have to give publisher and ISBN information in the text - put it in footnotes, or a further reading section, if you must. I'll come back in a while with some specific points in this section, but my head s spinning and I've got to take a break. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (Later) Here are some specific points within the section

**Explain who Tom DeLay was, don't rely on link

    • The opening sentence of para 2 is far too long - can you divide it?
    • As said above, ISBN and publsher information within text is very distracting.
    • I found this sentence confusing: "The book was published at a time when public opposition to the death penalty was at a historically high level by two of America's most prominent civil rights leaders". Was the book written by, or published by, these two civil rights leaders. Who were they?
      • Is your point that although I have established that Jackson, Jr. and Sr. are important I haven't established they are prominent civil rights leaders or is your point that the sentence is confusing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You certainly haven't established Jesse Jr's credentials as one of America's most prominent civil rights leaders. But apart from that, the sentence is confusing. The book was written by, not published by, three authors, two of were prominent civil rights leaders. It's impossible to deduce your meaning from the sentence as it stands - for all I know, the two civil rights leaders referred to could have been Jackson Sr and Shapiro. It will be a great tangle to explain all this, so why not end the sentence after "historically high level"?

**In 2001 he authorised..." Who is "he"?

More follows **Is Ho-Chunk a tribe or a nation?

**You have no citations covering the first two statements in this paragraph

    • The para illustrates one of the main problems I had with this section - 3 unrelated issues (Ho-Chunk, internet sales and Jack Johnson) flung together into a single paragraph. The mind boggles.
      • I did not feel the later two facts warranted more space than given and did not know what to do with them given that opinion. Please advise further.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's all to do with the way that this whole section lacks structure. I'm still thinking about this and will get back to you.

**"Reelection" means he won again - no need for "won again reelection"

**"Parks becomes..." Does that mean she will become, or has already become?

    • I don't think we need all the very specific medical stuff in the final para, paticularly that which relates to his sister.
      • Anything that I have to work too hard to find a secondary source for is of questionable notability and encyclopedic value. You may be right about this one given the sources I have had to use to find out about his weight loss. The thing is that I can not imagine a reader would look at the photos and not want some information. Given the likely curiosity, I refer to the info above about preserving all information in our debate about length. I think his weight loss is an important occurrence in his life. Given that we should say something if we can find anything. I have also found the following source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More follows Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Mayoral race

**It isn’t necessary to use again the “lower key” and “more moderate” comparisons with his father – this has been clearly established earlier in the article. If you feel you must re-emphasize the point, can you find a different wording?

  • 2006 and beyond

**Who is Harold Ford, and what office was he running for?

*Committee assignments: should “congress” be capitalized in first line

Tony, I suggest that, after you have dealt with my latest postings, we take a short break. This is quite a challenging GAN, and I don’t want judgements to be clouded by exhaustion or frustration. On Thursday I will bring forward some suggestions for minor structural changes in the “2001-06” and “2006 and beyond” sections. We can also review what differences of opinion still separate us, and can work to resolve them. Meanwhile I have a few other things to attend to, as I’m sure you have too. (I notice we are squaring up on the Hillary Clinton page now!). Good luck Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Structural suggestions are welcome because his career doe not have natural segments yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Tony, as an experiment I have reorganized the contents of the 2002-06 section under 3 subheadings: Legislative, Political and Other activities. I haven't altered any of the wording. I wanted to see if a more logical arrangement of the content would make the section easier to navigate. My personal opinion is that it does, but I'd like to hear what you think. If you like the idea, the same might be done to the 2006 and beyond section. The problem there is that, apart from the last short para, that section is all political and personal stuff. However, you could increase the legislative content of the section by referring in the text to the events shown in the images, which I don't see covered in the text at all (I refer to the Emancipation Hall Bill, and LIHEAP Day, whatever that is). I imagine they should be. I'll await your comments - put a message on my talk page when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That is great work. I definitely could use any help/advice on organizing the article further.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so if you can find extra legislative stuff for the 2006+ section, we'll try and organise that section in the same way. The article is progressing nicely I feel. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I spent the evening creating A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights. I have exhausted legislation except for going straight to his own house website. Should I take stuff from there?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, just put something into the text on the Emancipation Hall Bill, which you clearly think important enough to have four images. If he had any other major bill involvements in 2006-08 they should get a mention. But we don't need a flood of stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is another alternative. I could scour the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. However, I don't think this would be encyclopedic at the international level. The article already includes every notable fact about the congressman from Time, Newsweek, Businessweek, Forbes, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today and New York Times. Getting additional local stuff perspective would be filler. I will fill in Emancipation Hall and leave it at that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added text on the Emancipation Hall.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Jackson_Jr./Archive_1&oldid=719751976"