Please read the relevant text regarding the Time image to understand its inclusion. If the deletion occurs we can move his congressional photo to the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support — I've stated my support for this article several times before and will continue to do so. It is a superior article, well-cited, with appropriate images and clear prose. In answer to the most basic question about FACs, "Is this article among Wikipedia's finest works?", I can answer with a firm "Yes." In terms of quality, clarity, and coverage, it's head-and-shoulders above 99% of the other FACs out there, and the only reason it has had such trouble passing is because biographical articles are held to such a high standard — particularly those concerning living figures, let alone living political figures. I applaud Tony's tenacity in sticking with this article, improving it after every failed FAC, and resubmitting it. In all aspects it is a superior article, and any minor faults pale in comparison to the main body of work, which is superb in all respects. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment re the above support statement: While I understand the wish to register strong support for an article, to do so by denigrating other FACs is unwarranted. This article is better than a number of FACs I've seen, better than a few on this page right now, but it is by no means the best, let alone "head and shoulders above 99% of the the other FACs out there". That is taking support too far. A less bombastic summary of the article's merits might persuade others to look at it, and to support it, too. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I intended no offense. My comment is just an opinion, of course, and by no means do I consider myself an absolute expert on what makes an excellent article. However, from my (admittedly limited) point of view, this article has been through a far stricter review process than most FACs, and has been improved every single time. It has vastly more citations than most FACs, and those citations tend to be from very reliable sources. It comprehensively covers the subject, and I merely wanted to say that while every FAC is a Ferarri, this one is a Scuderia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment There are two fair-use images regarding Kemp as Dole's running mate. Since "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (see WP:FUC), I think one image (probably the bumper sticker) should go. --Eustress (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply I can easily remove the bumper sticker because it is the less informative of the two. I guess all post-WWI campaigns have a bumper stickers. I am not sure the article is better for the removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak Oppose The prose isn't that bad, I suppose, but it still warrants a third-party scan. Something else I have noticed is the inclusion of irrelevant information. Samples of this and other prose things:
"Saban suspected Al Davis of spying on the 0–3–1 Bills and made his team practice using false numbers."
That is part of the storyline for that paragraph. The team had a slow start. Kemp led them to a successful finish. This spying probably motivated the turnaround.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph of "Lou Saban era (1962–1965)"—It almost seems like you are focusing more on the team's performance than Kemp's role in the team. Do we really need to know that "The 1964 team relied on a running game of 250-pound (113.4 kg) Gilchrist and 220-pound (99.8 kg) Wray Carlton as well as a defense that set records for rushing yards, rushing TDs, and quarterback sacks."?
I was just putting Kemp's contribution in the context of the team performances that seeason. I could rearrange so that Kemp's performance comes first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be preferable. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"career-passing attempts" No hyphen needed, he didn't hold the record in attempts for "career passing".
"Kemp led the Bills to a repeat AFL Championship in 1965 without the 1964 AFL leader in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns, Gilchrist, who had been traded to the Broncos, and with the 1964 yards per reception leader, Elbert Dubenion, only playing three games."-->Kemp led the Bills to a repeat AFL Championship in 1965 without Gilchrist, the 1964 AFL leader in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns, who had been traded to the Broncos, and with the 1964 yards per reception leader, Elbert Dubenion, who played only three games.
Oppose, if 1996 Republican Vice President Nominee is in the Infobox. Vice Presidential Nominee is not a government office. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Has this issue been debated with other politicians at WP:FAC? For Kemp, it seems that politically he is most prominently described as the former VP nominee, then as Former Secretary and Congressman. His case is different than say John McCain because he was holding no other office during his tenure as nominee and he has held none since. Thus, it is not only his most prominent position, but also his most recent. There is much debate about whether this is considered an office. It seems to be an official office for succession boxes (see the bottom of Kemp's page). It also seems that like Speaker of the House, Majority leader, Whip, and other similar positions granted by the party there is no consistency on whether it is suppose to be in the infobox. Thus, at this point I am confused on whether this is an objection based on my decision to remove something that is not suppose to be removed. Obviously, if you opposed because I included his tenure as Secretary or Congressman your opposition would be discounted. However, in this case, it is not clear to me if you objecting wrongly. I hope to get further advice because if it is suppose to be removed, it can easily be removed, but if it is not we should hash that out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Congressman & HUD Secretary (for example) are government offices, therefore they belong in the Infobox. Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees, are not government offices; they don't belong (in the Infobox). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep: House Speaker, House & Senate Majority Leaders, House & Senate Minority Leaders are also government offices (as congressional offices). They've been obtained via an election. Could ya imagine going through all the related biography articles & adding Year Senatorial nominee in Infoboxes (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not follow. It seems to me that Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees, House Speaker, House & Senate Majority Leaders, House & Senate Minority Leaders are all in the same class. I.E., they are all party positions. Presidential and Vice presidential nominees are determined by a series of primary elections which is followed by a party convention where elected/selected delegates vote. The others are earned by elections of elected Congressmen. All are party offices. Do you have any source that says Speaker is a party office and Presidential nominee is not? They are all offices of the political party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
House Speaker, is a constitutional office. Would you recommend adding [Year] Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives nominee & [Year] Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives nominee to Infoboxes (remember Dems & GOP nominate a Speaker candidate every 2-yrs)? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by constitutional office. By party office, I mean position elected by members of the party and not the general electorate. Is the office outlined in the constitution?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaker of the House? yep. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What about Majority leader and Whip? How about RNC/DNC Chair? I am looking around and I see Bob Dole also includes RNC Chair in his infobox, but does not include Pres Nom. However, his succession boxes group them all as the same type of office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
RNC/DNC Chair, House/Senate floor leaders & whips are positions. Would you agree with adding the candidates for these positions in the Infoboxes? PS: I'd have no problem (personally) with Nominees, being deleted from the succession boxes, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Being nominee for Whip is probably a position that is officially held for a few hours or days at most. I imagine they have a meeting. They accept nominations from the floor and then they have a vote. It is likely that the position is held a few hours. Pres/VP nominee are three month offices that describe you forever. In all succession boxes they are grouped with the others at issue here. They are all considered party offices. I would imagine that as party offices go being Pres/PV Nom ranks above the others in terms of lifetime accomplishment. I finally understand your point that the Nominee may be a differentiating factor. I would prefer consensus on whether party political offices are all considered of equal import and notability and whether they all deserve equal treatment in terms of infoboxes. Can you tell me how Order of Precedence handles the various party officials? That may determine where I stand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain. Some Infoboxes have offices listed chronologically (years office held), others seniority wise. Some of those listed chornologically, are themselves in different order (recent to earliest or earliest to recent). GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You missed the thrust of my argument. Is former Pr/VP nom higher or lower rank in Order of Precedent than former RNC Chair or Majority Whip. It is possible leader/whip are just grouped in with congressmen and Pr/VP nom just grouped in with whatever political accomplishment propelled them to that rank. In this case that does not help. Then we need to determine should all party political offices be considered equal. I have never read a Time article where someone was described as former Majority Whip nominee. I have never seen the position in a succession box. I have never seen it in a Navbox template. I have never seen it mentioned in a WP:LEAD. A Pres/VP nom is in succession boxes, navbox templates and WP:LEAD. I have never heard Majority Whip nominee described as a party office. Pres/VP nom is always refered to thusly. I think Pres/VP nom is in a class by itself as far as noms go. A congressional district nominee who loses is not even necessarily WP:N. We can not say all nominees are equal. We need to rethink why Pres/VP nom ar in succession boxes, navboxes and WP:LEADs. If there is a good reason why, we should evaluate this for its relevance to its propriety in an infobox. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't mind seeing Prez & Vice Prez nominees in the content lead. I wouldn't mind seeing Prez & Vice Prez nominees deleted from the nav boxes (aswell as infoboxes). Remember, if ya add Prez/Vice Prez nominees to infoboxes (and nav boxes), then you'd have to add them to all related biography articles. For example: George W. Bush Infobox would require having 2000 Republican Presidential nominee & 2004 Republican Presidential nominee. Can you imagine what the Franklin D. Roosevelt & Richard Nixon Infoboxes would look like? GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't need nominee if you won, especially as an incumbent. I am not asking whether you would mind. My question is what do you think is right. For losing candidates should Pr/VP nom be in 1.) LEAD 2.) Party navbox 3.) succession box 4.) infobox. I am not asking whether you mind. We need to consider what is the right thing to do. Do we expunge it from all of these places or some. Do we consider the office the equal of other political party offices?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend: 1) Keep in the LEAD, 2) Delete from Party navbox, 3)Delete from succession box & 4) Delete from infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you give similar responses for 1. RNC/DNC chair, 2. Speaker of the House, 3. Maj/Min Leaders, and 4. Maj/Min Whips. Then we need to take this discussion where we can get lots of feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie- Keep the following 1] In the Lead: Party chairs, House Speaker, Floor leaders & Floor whips. 2] In the Navbox: Party chairs, House Speaker. 3] In the Succession box: House Speaker & 4] In the Infobox: House Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm content with that & I'll accept whatever the consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment You are currently objecting over something that you yourself have removed from the article. Are you objecting because the article once upon a time included something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarify: I'm against having 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee in the Infobox of this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If it has not been in the article and does not look like it is going to be in the article shouldn't you change your bolded declaration to neutral or support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I'm the GAC reviewer Tony alluded to above, and I agree that the prose needs work, though I don't think it's irredeemable. I'm going to start polishing it today, though it's a long article and I might not finish before the end of the week. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - Picking up where I left off, I'm starting in Post-HUD years.
The "Kemp's hosted a fund-raiser" from before was never done.
"and Gore has a reputation as an experienced and vaunted debater." Should "has" be "had". I'm not sure how much more debating he's going to do, and this has the potential to become outdated. It's a well-disguised "currently" issue.
I found Nationmaster. I added it rather than replaced the other becasue I am not sure it is much better. The information is not controversial, so it should not be important regardless.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Still a couple more sections to read before the end, but I'm getting there. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Still in Legacy: "conservative Black intellectuals". No reason to have Black capitalized.
Late career: "Kemp was among the prominent leaders who pledged to raise money for Scooter Libby's defense in 2005." This sentence would be more effective if it mentioned why Libby needed defending. Just a brief bit on the charges against him would be enough.
"Kemp recently donated generously". Two problems here. First, there's another "recently"; just say when he donated. Second, "generously" comes off as POV, even though it's true. Again, sticking to the facts (how much he donated) will fix this. "Currently" leads off the next sentence. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally, I offer support when all of my comments are addressed, but I'm a little hesitant with this article due to the ongoing prose concerns. Because of them, I'm planning on doing some work myself on this within the next few days. It's long, so it may take a while, but I think this process will lead to a better article. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose - I've copyedited about half the article now (to all but the last two paragraphs of the "Congress" section), and I think the problems go beyond quality of prose to the actual organization of the article. Within given sections (and even within paragraphs), there is often neither a thematic nor a chronological organization. More than a copyedit is needed; I think somebody familiar with the subject matter needs to rewrite sections entirely, which I'm not able to do without reviewing the sources in some depth. As noted by another reviewer earlier, I think there are also some issues with including information that's not directly-relevant to Kemp, as well as with random facts that are presented without context (which would again require somebody with more familiarity with American politics of the 1970s and 1980s than I have to address). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Equally reluctant oppose: If FAs were given on the basis of effort and persistence, this article would be promoted. But it must be judged against the FA criteria. It has been on FAC for a month, and is still being rewritten and reconstructed, which is not what this process is for. Furthermore, it is clear from reviewers' comments that there is still major work necessary. This work needs to be carried out away from FAC; there seems no shortage of editors willing to help, so I am optimstic that the article will get to FA eventually. But at present it is clearly not ready. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure I understand who the abundant editors are to assist with Sarcasticidealist's objections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)