Talk:Jack F. Matlock Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jack F. Matlock, Jr.)
Good articleJack F. Matlock 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
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Merge[edit]

I have proposed a merge of the Matlock, Jack Foust, Jr. article. I copied the information from there to here. Needs clean-up and if someone knows how to redirect things I would appreciate the help. Moomot 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hold[edit]

In general the prose is good and it is well organised. However you should run the whole thing through a spell checker. Also, please try to get rid of one-line paragraphs, try to combine them (e.g. stateside). Further more try to convert lists into prose (e.g. Washington)

Looking through there are some things that ought to be wikilinked (e.g. Infobox data like "Ronald Reagan", locations like "Tennessee" or "Moscow" and languages like "Czech, French, German...") and some that should not be (individual years outside a full date ("1987" should not be, but "April 6, 1987" should be).

On references, it is fairly well covered however you should be using the same citation template throughout and the reference should be coming after the period (.[7] not [7].). Some areas could also do with more citation, for exampe "Ghana and Tanzania" has nothing for the second two paragraphs.

No other major problems, get above sorted and it should be fine. If I do find anything else I'll post it up here. - J Logan t: 10:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proofreading. I have started to make the changes suggested, and will let you know when I am done. Hugh16 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed a set of edits to address the issues that you have raised. Thanks again and let me know if you spot anything else. Hugh16 10:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. I'll pass now. I made a few minor corrections but if one of those was a case of US spelling I apologise, I am not aware of all the differences between English and American styles. - J Logan t: 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very good prose.
2. Factually accurate?: Very well cited from many sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all topics well.
4. Neutral point of view?: No problems on POV, dealt with well.
5. Article stability? No problems of edit wars, reversions or major changes.
6. Images?: Two images used appropriate and both PD

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — - J Logan t: 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat considering bringing this before GA review, as the article does not meet the criteria in at least two ways. First of all, the lead is nowhere near conforming with WP:LEAD; specifically, it does not adequately summarize the entire article (it should be at least two paragraphs for an article of this size). Secondly, there are many uncited facts throughout the article (with may one or two small exceptions, for example, every paragraph should end with a citation unless it's something common knowledge or something that has already been cited previously). Please see if you can take care of these concerns within a day, or else I may bring it before Good article reassessment. Cheers, CP 14:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some references so that each paragraph ends in a reference; I will look at expanding the lead tomorrow. Hugh16 11:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has now been extended to summarize the whole article. Hugh16 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jack F. Matlock, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack F. Matlock Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack F. Matlock Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Jack F. Matlock Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jack F. Matlock Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section: Russo-Ukrainian War (suggestion)[edit]

Currently his views on it are mentioned in the “U.S. policy and politics“. Given how often I heard him referenced in the discussion surrounding Russia’s invasion it would be useful to create a new section to cover it more thoroughly.

Also the existing presentation of his views on the matter are understandably but unfortunately biased in an attempt to discredit him rather than address the substantive nature of his arguments. It would be good to summarize what he actually argued on the historical precursors and motivations from the kremlin. After, it’s certainly appropriate to highlight an apparent sympathetic perspective toward putin’s motivations (currently covered in the section). Then lastly a paragraph or two with the responses of other foreign policy experts/analysts to his arguments.

For someone with such extensive and relevant experience and knowledge on Russia and Ukraine his arguments should at least be presented in an unbiased manner (eg the article from Feb 15, 2022 in Responsible Statecraft) before framing his motivations dismissively as ‘pro kremlin’. Not only was he intimately involved with post soviet Russia as a diplomat, he’s been a professor at many Ivy League universities. He’s reputable even if his arguments are wrong VancouverIslandTide (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on the Russo-Ukrainian War and tried to clarify his views, as expressed in the referenced material. For example, I do not think Matlock's advocation of diplomacy warrants saying he is "sympathetic to Putin's agenda" or that he considers the invasion "could be justifiable". Hugh16 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]