Talk:Tammy Duckworth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will review this article. Edge3 (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have partially reviewed the article against the good article criteria. I will follow-up with a complete review once the preliminary issues are resolved:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are too many quotations in the article, especially in the "Political positions" sections. The "Recognition" section has a boxed quote that has unclear significance. It needs to be cited and further explained, if it is to remain.

   Fixed.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Please reduce or remove the citations in the lead paragraph. (WP:LEADCITE)

   Fixed.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Missing citation on first paragraph of "Post-military career". References also are not consistently formatted, especially the dates. Bare URLs in citations 9, 19, 28, 32, and others. This isn't a GA issue, per WP:GACN.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Please expand both subsections of "Congressional elections". The 2006 section could use some significant expansion, unless someone can demonstrate that there really isn't much to say about that election. As for 2012, the section is longer, but surely the civil suit isn't the only noteworthy part of the campaign?

   I've expanded both but I feel the 2006 election should be kept short since it has it's own article.

   B. Focused:

   Perhaps the "Political positions" sections could be merged and condensed.

   I've seriously cut down this section but I feel trying to put it in another section would be irresponsible.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Ongoing content dispute about the inclusion of the date of birth. Please resolve this soon. I should point out that WP:OPENPARA says in part: "The opening paragraph should have...dates of birth and death, if known" (emphasis added). I'll look into this policy further, but it seems that including the date of birth might be necessary for this to meet WP:GACR, since the date of birth is known.

   The article's been protected so there'll be no more warring over her DOB.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm placing this on hold for now. Edge3 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:

• Early life, education, and military service
  • Ref 5 (Slevin) doesn't support the statement: "Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English."
  • In the statement: "Following in the footsteps of her father and ancestors, who served in the Revolutionary War, World War II, and the Vietnam War..." — Ref 4 doesn't mention that she had an ancestor who fought in the Vietnam War.
  • "The explosion 'almost completely destroyed her right arm, breaking it in three places and tearing tissue from the back side of it.'" — Quotation not contained in ref 11.
• Post-military career
  • "She worked to develop state programs giving tax credits to employers who hire veterans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Desert Storm; more state grants to service organizations; and backing for below-market mortgages for veterans." — This statement almost copies word-for-word the phrasing used in ref 16. Please rephrase or use a quotation.
  • The Recognition paragraph begins with "Duckworth credits Dole..." without mentioning who Dole is until linking to Bob Dole in the third sentence.
  • "Duckworth credits Dole for inspiring her to pursue public service while she recuperated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C." — Not supported by ref 22, which only says "Duckworth has cited Dole's experience as an injured veteran-turned-politician as an inspiration for her candidacy."
  • "Former Republican Presidential candidate and Senator Bob Dole dedicated his biography One Soldier's Story in part to Duckworth." — First, it's an autobiography, not a biography. Second, perhaps it would be better to cite the book directly?

--Edge3 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments:

• Congressional elections
  • The section for 2006 contains only one citation, which verifies only the final results between Duckworth and Roskam. The rest of the paragraph needs to be cited because there are statistics that need to be verified.
  • "Duckworth defeated former Deputy Treasurer of Illinois Raja Krishnamoorthi for the Democratic nomination on March 20, 2012, then faced incumbent Republican Joe Walsh in the general election." — Not supported by ref 30.
  • "Duckworth was considered the favorite, as the district had been redrawn to be significantly more Democratic than its predecessor." — Missing citation.
  • "On October 11, 2012, during a live debate between the two, Walsh brought up the fact that Duckworth had been named in a civil suit filed by two employees against Patricia Simms, director of the Anna Veterans' Home in southern Illinois." — Refs 18 and 19 seem to be irrelevant.
  • "... the first member of Congress born in Thailand." — Doesn't seem to be supported by the source.
• Political positions
  • Entire "Veterans affairs" section directly copies text from ref 38
  • Perhaps her stance on education isn't noteworthy? It's sourced to her campaign website's press release.
  • The first "Iraq War" paragraph implies that the positions Duckworth expressed in her press release were also expressed in her response to Bush's weekly radio address. Please separate the two and clarify the difference.
  • I'm not sure whether the quote in the "Iraq War" section is necessary.
  • In the "Gun control" section, none of the three citations have working links, and the quotation does not have a reference.

I now conclude this review. Because I have identified close paraphrasing or copyright violations, I fail this article's GA nomination per WP:GAQF.

I have also noticed that edit warring occasionally resumes over the inclusion of Duckworth's DOB. Most recently, an anonymous user re-added the DOB today. This edit cannot be considered vandalism, per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Thus, the article currently fails GA criterion #5, which is also grounds for quick failure.

Even if there is no edit war, I would argue that the GA criteria urges that the full DOB be included, per WP:OPENPARA. (For the path, see GA criterion #1, which requires compliance with WP:LEAD. Go to the WP:LEAD#Biographies section, which in turn points directly to WP:MOSBIO. See WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph.) I should note that WP:GACR does not require me to check for compliance with WP:BLP. Because there seems to be a conflict between WP:GACR and WP:DOB, which is further complicated by the existence of WP:WELLKNOWN, this GA nomination cannot proceed without further clarification on how the guidelines and policies should be interpreted when we mix them together.

I recommend asking Tammy Duckworth if we can include her full birthdate on the article, since that would allow us to sidestep this debate entirely. Once all of the other issues I listed above are addressed, I recommend submitting this for renomination or, if you challenge my reasoning, reassessment. --Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors vs forefathers

This is a really well written article. Kudos to all who have contributed. It was only when I came to the use of the word ancestors that I felt that not quite the right word (nor the right tense in the subordinate phrase) had been used. Ancestor has the connotation of legal terminology on the one hand, biological descent trees on another, and spiritual and ethnic roots on another. In the context of military prowess and service to one's nation, it seems to me that either forebears or forefathers is the better term. Given that all the said fighting forebears were fathers rather than mothers, forefathers seems to me to be the right word here.124.186.93.5 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)