Wikipedia:Peer review/Cheryl Gallant/archive1

Cheryl Gallant

This article is a constant source of vandalism, as Gallant is relatively outspoken, with many taboos to her name. The Ottawa Citizen mentioned this article in a piece they did on how Wikipedia is helping fuel rumours, and the Runge newspaper chain of the Ottawa Valley has asked me to comment on the situation. Go ahead and fire away at this semi-protected article, let's see if we can continue existing efforts to whip it into shape. -- user:zanimum

So no comments on this article's style? Does it look okay? -- user:zanimum

There is quite a bit of non-working wiki-coding, including the image which doesn't exist on the top and the notes section on the bottom. The lead section could use some work and some brief expansion. Personal life should be shifted upwards to the beginning, considering that it contains her early life. Some more details certainly can be added about her early life. AndyZ 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh geez, didn't see that that code had gone wrong. Don't know where the pic went, it was properly licensed. So the early life should be first, it shouldn't be in order of what's most important to most readers? -- Zanimum

• The "Personal life" section could be used to give details on her influences and motivations. The "Political career" section does a excellent job at mentioning her controversies but does not give much in terms of context. For example, why the heated exchange with Bill Graham (what was the setting that made her blurt out the anti-gay remarks)? Also, the article needs to be more balanced. The article says that she thinks Christians are being persecuted in Canada and she equates abortion with beheading of war hostages. This needs to be balanced out with the context of why she said that - no excuses, but explanation/analysis. Was she trying to provoke or rally somebody? Biographies are typically done in chronological order. So an early life section usually comes first - but has much less detail so the article emphasizes the political aspects. --maclean25 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some suggestions; generally, this seems a long way from neutral right now. I'd never heard of her, so maybe some ideas are off, but here we go:

1. One way to partially address maclean25's comments would be to include more about other positions, both elected or not, in and out of government, that she has held before becoming an MP. What did she formerly do for a living?
2. A neutral discussion of her political beliefs, outside of specific times she's said outrageous stuff, would be good too. The article needs to cover times she's not in the "spotlight", as well.
3. I'd trim the big quote in the last paragraph; the first sentence gives the idea, and is sufficient.

CDC (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)