Talk:Gene Amondson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Gene Amondson has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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
June 7, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
August 22, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews[edit]


I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?[edit]

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here, anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gene Amondson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article. I find it a very nice article, quite well done. I did a little copy editing, mostly removing spaces and such.

  • One question, I am not clear about the copy right status of of the two photos that have OTRS tickets.
  • Also, there are a couple of links that need disambiguation.[1]

Xtzou (Talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I believe I have fixed all the disambiguation links above. As for the photos, I received them from Amondson's son and was given permission to use them on wikipedia (which is why I added them to the article), but the OTRS people found that his permission was not explicit enough to use on commons. I will contact him and try to get this worked out. In the meantime, I'll comment out the images. I am certain this will be cleared up shortly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Xtzou (Talk) 12:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Concisely and clearly written
    B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Reliable sources
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Sets the context
    B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 12:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Article and other issues[edit]

First I think it's odd that this was listed as a "good article" given that the person who passed it was found to be a "sockpuppet" and had a dozen or so other accounts. I'm not used to setting up reassessment pages or I'd do it but I think this page should be looked at again by an honest user.

Secondly, there's several parts of the article that seem to violate, or at least come close to it, POV,weasel word rules, etc. Things like "described by acquaintances" (w/o citations) sounds more like someone who knew him is trying to defend his image or something. There are a number of similar phrases throughout the article. Also the whole thing makes the guy sound like a perfect human with no real faults. Now I hate to speak ill of the dead but this isn't a place for personality praising. Third, I don't see any reason to have 4 lines dedicated to his car and bumper stickers and it should probably be removed. Coinmanj (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Item for further inquiry[edit]

--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)