|Gene Amondson received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gene Amondson 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.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
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.
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
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?
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:
- Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
- Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
- John McCain and John C. Hagee
- Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik
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)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gene Amondson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- 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.
- 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)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality: Concisely and clearly written
- B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS
- 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:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects: Sets the context
- B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- Pass or Fail: Pass!
Good Article and other issues
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)