| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Hi, I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs another set of eyes to check it over—I've been trying to cut the fluff and add references and content, but I don't know enough about Florida politics during the 90s or faith-based initiatives under George W. Bush to be sure that the article covers them accurately and with a proper level of detail.
Thanks, Genericusername57 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comments by Vyeh
External links
Genericusername57 The first link seems to be dead. Safari returned an error message. The second link is dead. For the third link, keep in mind: Links should be kept to a minimum and Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided: "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming," and "13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." While this would be an appropriate link for an article about Five Wishes, it is indirectly related to the subject. If there is a bio of the subject on the site, WP recommends linking to that section.
Lead Section
The third paragraph seems disconnected between the first and the remaining sentences. Consider moving the first sentence to the end of the first paragraph. I think adding the years he served with Hatfield and Chiles would be helpful.
Legal Counsel for Mother Theresa
No footnote after "assisted in establishing AIDS clinics and homeless shelters, and coordinated immigration matters for her nuns," which ends the section.
Aging with Dignity
How about the years, similar to "(1985-97)" for Mother Theresa? This does not say he created Five Wishes (which was stated in the lead) or that he did it as part of Aging With Dignity. When did he create Five Wishes?
"Death book" op-ed
The first sentence is about the WSJ op-ed. The remaining three sentences are about a FNS appearance. I suggest eliminating the subsection heading and integrating the material into the Aging with Dignity section.
Saint Vincent's College
No citation at the end of the first paragraph following "During the years of his presidency, the college saw record levels of applications and enrollment as well as new pledge commitments; three consecutive budget surpluses; and the initiation of the most expensive construction and renovation project in the college’s history. Towey made a priority of recruiting minority and international students. He also created a new Office of Service Learning through which hundreds of Saint Vincent students experienced serving those in need. Towey presided over a somewhat controversial reaccreditation of the college by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools in 2007."
The material about Mark Gruber is irrelevant to an article about Jim Towey. The only thing that is relevant is that Mark Gruber was the only one opposing Towey's hiring decisions.
Rift Statement
Fifth sentence: "rift" is not capitalized.
See also
This section is disfavored. It is generally used for wiki articles that are NOT wiki linked in the article. Since it is wiki linked in the lead sentence, you should eliminate the section.
I hope I've given you enough to start with. I'm involved in thoroughly reviewing Lana Turner for User:Drown Soda. Since you've given a lot of peer reviews, I assumed you are looking for reciprocation. I think the article is currently C Class. With the number of sources you have, I'm sure there is a lot of material. Your lack of knowledge is an advantage. You won't be tempted to violate No Original Research. Vyeh (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your very helpful and detailed comments. I'll work on putting your suggestions into place. A major issue with the article when I began working on it was that most of the content was based either on hagiographic press releases put out by his college or on attacks by people upset about the Gruber affair. If I can't find external, objective sources for some of the information, should I cut it out altogether?
- Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Genericusername57 As long as they are reliable, biased sources are okay:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
Infobox
@Genericusername57: I went ahead and put in the names of the children in the infobox. I think the intent of that field are names rather than a number (as the intent of spouse(s) is a name rather than a number. Revert if you don't like how it looks. (You've already thanked me for the edit before I could publish this update to the peer review.)
Consider using the template, Template:Infobox officeholder with '{{Infobox US cabinet official}}' and '{{Infobox chancellor}}' at the top. There seems to be a way of showing an officeholder with multiple offices. You should be able to get both of Mr. Towey's university chancellorships in.
Regarding the infobox: person template, you're using, I think he is a public enough figure you could put in his birth year, if not the date, if it has been widely publicized. You can list Aging with Dignity and Five Wishes in the fields "known_for" and "notable_works".
You can put in "Jacksonville, Florida" in the "birth_place" field. There are also fields for party (Republican(?) if you have a RS) and home_town (Ave Maria or Naples).
Lead section
It reads well.
Background and personal life
Ditto.
Political career
Ditto.
Humanitarian Work
Ditto.
Positions in Academia
I don't believe you need brackets around ellipses ('[ ... ]'). Ellipses (' ... ') are enough. Otherwise, it reads well. I like the way you wrote the section about the Rift statement. Good NPOV.
Public recognition and awards
It looks like you put in the "better citation needed" as an unregistered user. While I encourage you to continue to search for a newspaper source, I believe an official biography put out by St. Vincent is reliable enough. It doesn't look self-published and the awards are not likely to generate controversy. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview says:
References
Wow. They look very nice.
External Links
The current link says nothing about Jim Towey. A search produced https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/towey.html, which is more suitable. If everything in that bio is in the article, consider no external links.
Tables of political and academic offices
Nice.
You've done an excellent job in the nine days since my initial comments. You could ask for a review from the two wikiprojects listed on the talk page. I imagine that after some requests for revisions, the article would easily make C Class and perhaps B. Vyeh (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The infobox looks nice! Vyeh (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)