Talk:Greg Ball (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Statement about intentions

Certainly we cannot talk about all of the things Greg Ball will do and then use the phrasing about how he will have 'champion[ed] term limits'. I don't want to make a drastic edit because someone feels that these are positions he ran on... so, what can the better phrasing be? MrMacMan 08:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• The embedded weblinks need to be converted into proper inline references. Those in the lead should be changed to regular text and when the committees in question appear in the main body of the article the embedded weblinks should be used as inline references where applicable. All links to Youtube should be removed as they are unstable and will not last long.

Excellent, I will get on this over the weekend.

• Some of the prose needs looking at more closely to avoid cliche and unencyclopedic wording. I have provided some examples below.

• "Beginning his quest for office" - would be better as "Began his political career"
• "remains in the U.S. Air Force Ready Reserve to this day." - no need for "to this day"
• "Spitzer and Assemblyman Ball do not always see eye to eye," - not only does this need updating, but eye-to-eye is not a very encyclopedic term.

• "Following controversy involving New York State Assemblyman Will Stephens," - What was this controversy?
• The audio of the speech says that it is from the BBC and is therefore in the public domain. This must be looked at as I can assure you that material from the BBC is definitely not in the public domain, it is subject to the same copyright laws as everything else.

I may have listed it wrong, but the audio file is from PRI, Public Radio International, an a product of the American Federal Government. It says on the PRI website that the podcasts are in the public domain.

This is by no means a bad article, but it needs work on the issues outlined above before it can be passed. I have to say I am a little surprised to see such an extensive article on such a minor political figure but it does the job and does it well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Hopefully I will be able to make the appropriate changes by Monday or Tuesday. MrPrada (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work, I'm happy to pass this now. If I review an article of yours in future please don't strike out my comments until I have had a chance to assess whether they have been completed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST A-review closed as out of scope

Per the discussion at WT:MHCOORD, I have closed the A-review. Regards, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

This page is a blatant political advertisement. Basically, only one guy edits it and writes everything to make it seem like this Ball guy is the messiah. Just take a look at the Eliot Spitzer paragraph. Hell, you'd think the guy resigned because Ball told him to. Last I checked Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox. This page definitely is not worthy of the honors its primary editor has sought for it.Datawants82 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Free college tuition for veterans

Under the ‘Free college tuition for veterans’ section “Ball reintroduced the legislation and garnered thirty-one cosponsors. [127]” references bill A09701 (http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A09701 ). The last activity on this bill was on April 15th, 2008, 6 days after the budget was already approved by the senate and assembly (reference bill A09807 Actions section from below). This bill has not been acted upon and was not part of the signed budget.

The line and footnote 130: “Ball's legislation was picked up by the entire Assembly Republican Conference through their 2008 legislative package.[130]” Footnote 130 links to the Greg Ball campaign web site. That is not a neutral or unbiased location for gathering information. The NY legislation that was enacted, passed and signed by the governor which included veteran tuition awards (not remissions) is A09807 (http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A09807 ). Greg Ball voted No on that bill but still takes credit for its passage. He voted against the funding. Hidemyrealid (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is longer than the subject merits

A 109kb size, 36k readable prose, 5800 word, 267 references article for a 31-year old state assemblyman who's just begun his third year in office? No offense to this person, but nothing he's done in his life merits this level of attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. For example, this article is longer the former U.S. President Chester Arthur, iconic actor John Wayne. The contributions to the article may be coming from his office of sympathetic supporters. Suggest a major revision down to 1 or 2 paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.97.26 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, this article has gotten much too long and much to detailed. I don't care what Greg Ball had for breakfast today. One major excision should be Greg Ball's opinions and his estimation of his own worth. Cut these down to a few sentences on the most notable. --Cjs56 (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Concurred, all...I've tagged the page accordingly. 208.81.94.153 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There...I've done some significant work on it. Still stuff left to be done, though. 70.23.79.203 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gregory R. Ball/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are clear-cut issues here with NPOV, advertisement, and detail (violating the article breadth criterion). 141.155.57.27 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a political advertisement wherein "controversial" issues are raised, then dispensed with. There do not seem to be factual errors so much as biased political coverage. H2O32F 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFrieze (talk • contribs)

---

The artical is well written but bothers me. I do not think it should be given GA status.

It smells of politics and that is something we do not want to be involved with on Wikipedia.Steven1969 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has several shortcomings. It fails MoS standards with stubby paragraphs and a lead which fails to provide a complete encapsulation of the article. There are also POV concerns and some missing ref tags. It will benefit from a Good Article review; I suspect it should be delisted. Majoreditor (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am delisting this article in view of the concerns raised. Ucucha 19:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of article

The only people who seem to care about this article are supporters and opponents of Ball, which at the moment, means that the article exists in a constant state of edit-warring between two differently biased articles. This is not useful to the creation of a good encyclopedia. Supporters and opponents of Ball, instead of edit-warring, should use this talk page to discuss which facts are important and verifiable, and change the article as consensus is reached. To help that happen, new and unregistered editors will have to discuss their changes here, and let more experienced editors actually add the agreed-upon changes to the article. I've made this semiprotection last for six months, after which the elections should be over and everyone less eager to edit-war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please use the 17:09, 26 March 2010 revision of this article as the template for making this article encyclopedic. The current version has been thoroughly whitewashed by political opponents to focus on subjective controversies with no attention on accomplishments. It whitewashes the electoral history. It whitewashes dozens of sourced quotations and information. It intentionally misinforms readers of birthplace. And, it links to a libelous web site, run by the same political opponents.GBallNY99 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— GBallNY99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the term "whitewash", which you have been using as if it meant its precise opposite!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this user should have much to say regarding this article given their name; a contribution on their part would seem to be a thorough violation of the Conflict of Interest guidelines. Furthermore, one half of the edit war on this article created sockpuppet accounts; one does have to wonder whether or not this, too, is the latest incarnation of that. 71.167.167.100 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen specifically asked for supporters and opponents to provide feedback on the Discussion page. This page remained stable for several months until unregistered users began to whitewash content. I have simply requested that we begin with the most thorough version as a starting point. Is there content from the 17:09, 26 March 2010 revision that you find specifically objectible as not being encyclopedic? GBallNY99 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)— GBallNY99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Un-encyclopedic edits seemed to have been made to this page by an unregistered user. Compare this entry to the entry on Conservapedia, at http://www.conservapedia.com/Gregory_R._Ball, which has been mostly static for two years. It also became a target for deletion after the subject entered a contested election. I agree, the original version should be restored, and edits monitored from that version.Kirk.piersol1 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

High Importance?

Why would any article about a minor politician be considered of "high importance"; one only hears fr these people when they are running for election.Mannanan51 (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The long-standing practice for the New York regional subprojects has been to rate current state politicians as high-importance. – TMF (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the conclusions of the Moreland Commission be mentioned?

According to the New York Times (After Ethics Panel’s Shutdown, Loopholes Live On in Albany By THOMAS KAPLAN, WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM and SUSANNE CRAIGDEC. 8, 2014), "The Moreland Commission found that State Senator Gregory R. Ball, a Republican, financed excursions to Cancún and Acapulco and a leisurely road trip using money from his campaign."

Isn't this significant enough to include in this article?174.239.68.59 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)