Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gene Amondson/1

Gene Amondson[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept The nominator claims that the article is biased and some statements are unsourced. A close examination of the article finds no outstanding issues. Other editors have indicated that there are no outstanding problems. No comments have been made in three weeks so the article is kept as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue I have is the fact that the original reviewer User:Xtzou was actually a sock puppet and the "real person" account as well as the SP accounts have all been blocked. Many of the members who do most of the work on the article are biased editors (pro-party) and connected to the blocked accounts.

I also take issue with the fact this article, about a little known person in a little known party Prohibition Party, gives so much detail on un-important subjects like the content of his car's bumper stickers. And it has phrases (w/o sources) like "described by acquaintances" etc which paint him in a "do-no-wrong" light which violates NPOV. In fact I can't find anything but praises. Now he may have been a nice guy but there's no way his life, views, off-handed comments 20 years ago, etc could be flawless and without disagreement. Just because he ran for US president (like 166+ people are currently for 2012) doesn't mean his bio should be given so much weight and detiled info about his life, small hobbies etc.

Accuracy: A number of statements lack sources. Neutral: In my opinion it isn't. Large editors are connected to the PP, blocked accounts and a good many sources comes from Gene's own sites & writings. Coinmanj (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which editors are connected to the party?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you can find any reliably sourced criticism please add it to the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article could be copyedited by a Copy Editors' Guild member. [[User:Things That Will Bite|User:Things That Will Bite/Font 1 StartTxiиg$ Tx&τ W!ll]]

+

81TE 02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the reliable sources provide only praise, then the only NPOV article is an article that also provides only praise. Similarly, if the reliable sources waste a lot of ink on the guy's bumper stickers, then the only possible NPOV article will also spend a lot of time describing his bumper stickers. That's the basic definition of NPOV: talk about whatever the sources talk about, not what some editor (e.g., you) thinks is important.

As for unsourced statements, the GA criteria require inline citations for exactly five kinds of statements (which is more than the content policies require). If you see uncited material that falls into the five kinds for GA, then I suggest that you tag it as {{citation needed}}. (Don't get forget to check nearby citations; we don't require editors to duplicate citations after every single sentence that is supported by the citation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.