Talk:Vere Bird Jr.

Vere Bird Jr. has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 3, 2021	Good article reassessment	Kept
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 12, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Antiguan politician Vere Bird, Jr. became Minister of Science, Technology and Communications in 1996, despite an earlier report recommending that he never be allowed to hold public office again?
Current status: Good article

Antigua and Barbuda Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antigua and Barbuda 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.Antigua and BarbudaWikipedia:WikiProject Antigua and BarbudaTemplate:WikiProject Antigua and BarbudaAntigua and Barbuda articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Odd sentence[edit]

In the "scandal and firing" section, the first sentence, "The inquiry, run by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper,[12] Bird was formally fired as a Cabinet minister on 10 May, the day Blom-Cooper arrived to begin conducting the inquiry.[13]", doesn't sound right. I'd reword it myself, but I can't tell what was intended and the sources are offline. Jenks24 (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bit of a head-scratcher for me too; any better now? Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks, that makes sense now, though I'm sure a good copy-editor (I'm afraid that's not me) would be able to tweak it a bit. On a related note the two sentences don't really combine that well when it's read as "on 10 May, the day Blom-Cooper arrived to begin work.[13] Blom-Cooper began work on 4 June". Does that sound strange you, or am I just being dense? Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase as "Arrived on Antigua". And no, all my GAs and FAs need a good copyedit after I finish them before they're useful - thanks for the help! :). Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, much better now. Other than that, great article, very interesting read. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-did the Review[edit]

Explanation after explanation of why it is not a good article. Electronscope44 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns for Antigua[edit]

I'm considering making a page just for the "Guns for Antigua" scandal and the Louis Blom-Cooper commission, though at present only have one or two sources I could cite for such a page. But I really don't think it's proper for such a major event in modern Antiguan history to be dealt with most comprehensively on the page of someone who was involved but not key. Thoughts? Pascal (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I have full LexisNexis access - give me an email if you want additional sources. Ironholds (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer Westlaw, but there we are. I'm not sure if the text of the commission report is on there, and Blom-Cooper's book Guns for Antigua is rather expensive and probably not in my uni library, though I will check. My only current source is a book by Geoffrey Robertson, who was involved with the commission. It's a fascinating story and I think it deserves more than a mish-mash of paragraphs on several different pages. Pascal (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a lovely journal article with a stack of info - "Narcotics arms trafficking, corruption and governance in the Caribbean" by Griffith JMLC 1997 1(2) 138, at 139-140. Pascal (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant LexisNexis academic, rather than legal - it's an archive of every piece of news literature since 1960, basically :p. Ironholds (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds badass. I've got a half-plagiarised passage on my Sandbox page, if you wanna check it out and make a few changes or something. Pascal (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me an email so I have your address and I'll send over every source I can find.

I have no idea how to do that, can't find your address. Pascal (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to my userpage and open up the toolbox and the like on the left hand menu bar (if you're using the shiny, Vector skin) there should be a button marked Email This User? Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article reassessment[edit]

Vere Bird Jr.[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept No reason given for delisting Aircorn (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the GA status being almost or even over 10 years old and the person who rated it is banned, it should be time to review it again. I said that it could be a C or even a B but it is no longer GA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonlightVector (talk • contribs)

MoonlightVector, could you specify which part of the GA criteria you don't think is met here? Currently there's an active cleanup tag but it's not immediately clear to me what needs to be cleaned up. Article organization looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MoonlightVector: I tend to agree with Buidhe as the article looks pretty well organised to me. Some edits have been done since the review so maybe they fixed a few issues. Also we need more info, specifically how it fails one or more of the WP:GACR before we can delist. The age of the status or nominator being banned is not relevant (unless they were banned when they passed the article). Aircorn (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have decided to do a GAR because of an old GA assessment from 10 years ago, which the reviewer has been removed/banned. Due to this it would be a good time to reassess this page. MoonlightVector 13:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]