Talk:The Case for Impeachment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Case for Impeachment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

The Case for Impeachment was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 14, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 26, 2017	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited

Current status: Former good article nominee

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 26, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Irrelevant additions

[1] This addition totally does not belong here.

Certainly not as its own entire subsection.

It has nothing to do with this book.

And none of those cited sources mention this book.

And they are all bare-links to Amazon.com.

Just, no.

Sagecandor (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly DO! They prove that The Case for Impeachment is a rather common title for books of this type. This is relevant because there are other books by that name. While I have no problem with an article on THIS book, it's not the only one out there with that exact title. It's important that we mention that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do they specifically mention this particular book? Is it okay to use barelinks to Amazon.com as sources? Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They specifically mention the TITLE, which is exactly same as this book. As proof of the very existence of these books with the exact same title, and may be a cause of confusion out there in the world? Yes. That's why II added (2017) to the title of the article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a hatnote regarding the 2006 book, since the authors have articles even though the book doesn't. Hopefully this will settle things a bit. Trivialist (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the hatnote. Can be added back IFF and when there is an existing wiki article of the same name. There is not any other wiki article by this name right now. Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at WP:RSN by Rhododendrites explains this perfectly: [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section

As far as I know, "See also" sections should not display links that appear elsewhere in the article, including navigation templates. Should links appearing in Template:Trump presidency be removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:I've removed all the ones that were dups to the template. Look better? Sagecandor (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable book per WP:NBOOK Criteria (1) and (5)

Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1) and (5).

(1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Namely, The Washington Post, Financial Times, New York Journal of Books, CounterPunch, The Hill, and CBC News.

(5). The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. Namely, Allan Lichtman.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism tag

Disagree with "Recentism" tag. I'm aware of the concerns, thank you. As more sources come available over time, will add them to the article. In the meantime, the article is up to date. Sagecandor (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recentism tag certainly applies, particularly when we see attempts to add images (or commentary) that have no relationship to the book itself. See WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary is by the author. About the subject of his book. In the article about his book. That is directly relevant. Anyways, how is it "recentism" ? You fail to explain this? Sagecandor (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary by the author is fine if he is talking about the book (which would include his premises). Recentism is simply a message to editors to consider how recent events are related to the topic of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thank you for explaining yourself. I think you are trying to use {{recentism}} instead of {{current}}. Sagecandor (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But "current" does not apply because this article is about the book, not the events surrounding the publication of the book. For more, see WP:Recentism. – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will do some trimming in size of the section per WP:Recentism. Sagecandor (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAR -- pending

I've done a "failed" Good Article review, but have not posted the failed GAR template. Basically I'd like another editor to come on by and see if my eval is correct. If so, please comment. If not, I'll take steps to remove my GAR. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With consent of the nominator, the GAR is closed as failed. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problems with the close, thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]