Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom DeLay/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tom DeLay[edit]

Self-nom. I haven't written much of this article, but I've tweaked just about every sentence of it, and I think that it meets the featured article criteria. The peer review is available here. NatusRoma | Talk 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 42KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style
  • Support. Article is well-written and well-referenced. An excellent article on a controversial subject. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – 1. needs to be summarised 2. Too many headings. Please reduce. 3. Image:TomDeLay.jpg is of a very low resolution. Please replace. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Is it not possible to replace the low quality image ? I didn't see this addressed in the comments and responses here? Sandy 12:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image itself isn't as bad as the infobox template makes it look. At a more reasonable size, it's not perfect, but I think that it is adequate. See Image:tomdelay.jpg for higher-resolution but smaller picture. NatusRoma | Talk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object 1)There are too many small subgroups, for instance, the section on Dan Qualye could easily be integrated into the section on early congressional career and Northern Mariana Island could be placed in the main Abromoff section. 2)The Russian Oil event took place later, not earlier in his career. 2)There are several one sentance paragraphs that could be merged together, such as about him being prolife in Domestic POlicy and the impeachment of Clinton in cong. career. 3)Why did he contact Federal agencies int he redistricting case? Did he want the FBI to track them down?

These are a few examples, but they, and the other small things like them, should be easy enough to fix. Illuminato 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I have integrated both the Quayle and Northern Marianas sections into their respective parent sections. The latter merge wasn't very clean, but I plan to rewrite that section soon, in accordance with Staxringold's objections.
  2. The Russian Oil events took place in 1998, before DeLay's tenure as House Majority Leader, but press coverage did not come until December 2005. I have clarified the timing of the events.
  3. The pro-life paragraph consists of two sentences, the first of which is very short. I plan to expand have expanded the paragraph about the Clinton impeachment.
  4. DeLay contacted the agencies in order to find the locations of the missing legislators. I have edited the section to make this clearer. NatusRoma | Talk 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I believe that I have satisfied all of Illuminato's objections. NatusRoma | Talk 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object My objections are as follows:
    • The lead should be shortened to conform with WP:LEAD
    • The article should be shortened/split-off as it is currently 68 kb
For both of these first two: what do you think needs to go? NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the lead, it just goes into too much detail in paragraphs 2-3. I would shorten each one down, removing smaller details, and merge into one large 2nd paragraph. As for the main article body, remove further small details from sections that already have split-offs (for example, all that information in the Terry Schiavo paragraph led by Law and Order) or add large amounts of information to the split-offs as in all that information under "Grand Jury Indictments" for the corruption indictments. The purpose of split-offs is to allow the detailed coverage you are providing here in the main article body, but keep the main article slick and readable. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A three-paragraph lead is permitted by WP:LEAD. The third paragraph does give a lot of weight to recent events, but I think that the fact that they're still current means that some recentism is justified. Also, I think you'll agree that it does a thorough job of laying out the content of the article that follows, which is beneficial in view of Wikipedia 1.0 proposals. As for the split-offs, I think that I'll change many of the {{main}} tags to {{see also}} tags, because the Tom DeLay corruption investigation page is the only true split-off from the main article. However, that page has been edited very little which means that what's in the main article may in places be more up-to-date than the information in the split-off. NatusRoma | Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Accusations of misuse of federal investigative agencies" subsection is very short for it's own section, needs refs, and should try to avoid the list
The two inline citations that are presently included in the section source everything that's there. I will change it to avoid the list and expand it. NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'll try to check in on the article, but leave me a note if you feel you've fixed this (or any other) problem and I haven't responded. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cuban cigar photograph" would be greatly aided by at least a properly fair use explained copy of the photo and perhaps further text on how people knew it was a Cuban from just a photo(never mind on the second part, looking at the Time ref the zoom makes it clear)
Done. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Abramoff scandal could use almost a complete rewrite for such a key section and the AP quote isn't all that helpful
Fixed. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early portions of "Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments" need some refs (I see whole paragraphs of detail without a single ref) and there probably should be (this is a personal idea, not per any specific policy) at least a mention of the jokes/comments made about Delay's mugshot and how, because he was clean shaven and happy looking, opposition to Delay didn't get the effect they were hoping for out of the mugshot (I remember some decent sized hay being made out of that photo for a few days following it's release).
Fixed. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under "Reaction to indictments" the statement "DeLay and his attorney, Dick DeGeurin, have said that Earle has a history of indicting his political enemies." is completely unsourced, despite being a supposed summary of a quote.
Fixed: I couldn't find a source for DeGeurin, but I did find one for DeLay. NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The single See Also link can probably go.
    • The refs should use the "small" div code (I'll do that).
  • Sorry for the long list, but I figured I'd be thorough. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm now willing to vote support as the Natus has done a fantastic job addressing my objections. I would still say the lead could use a bit of trimming, but I don't know what should be trimmed so I don't feel right objecting. Ditto for the daunting article size of 77kb. My only remaining issue (which should take 2 seconds to fix and isn't worth an objection) is that the statement "DeLay is pro-life. In 2005, he voted 100% in line with the views of the National Right-to-Life Committee and 0% with the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League." from "Domestic Policy" could use a reference. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support-I gotta say, that regardless of anything else, the article is really informative and surprisingly balanced and fact-based when discussing Delay. A whopping 82 citations lends it a lot of credibility in my book. I don't mind the sub-headings as they are placed well in the article and are to the point and actually should help readers to better understand various aspects of his life. The entire article has a strong focus in fact and good chronological flow. Great work! Tombseye 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that Notes (inline citations) are referred to as References, and there is no References section. As an example, the Dubose and Reid book is cited several times in what should be called Notes, and it should be listed as a Reference, so that people can easily find it when it is cited with a page number. Notes are inline citations: References are general references. For an example, see Notes and References sections on Hugo Chávez. Sandy 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I also noticed that your External Links are not balanced, per WP:EL. I strongly object (changed to Weak Object, see below) to a controversial, current political topic as an FA, if balance of criticism has not been addressed, to assure that all sides of the story are presented. It is too easy for POV to creep into an article if balance isn't present in sources and/or External Links. Sandy 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will fix the notes/references split. As for the question of a controversial topic, if Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has killed people because of their race, can be today's main page article, then I don't see why this article, about a man who merely makes a lot of people angry, can't be a featured article as well. Many other editors and I have worked very hard to ensure that this article is neutral, but if there is something that you think is unbalanced, please say so. NatusRoma | Talk 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reevaluate my vote once the refs/notes are revised, but would still like to see balance in External Links, to be more assured that any potential POV is addressed as thoroughly as possible. One support External link versus so many critical: maybe you can check whether all the critical are needed? Sandy 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources#"Notes" section, and given the fact that the list of references adds 16 kb to an already lengthy article, it might be advisible to avoid a duplicate references section. Do you know of any way of directing citations of multiple pages of the same work to the same note in the current citation format? NatusRoma | Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another option may be creating a subpage for the notes (e.g., Tom DeLay/References). NatusRoma | Talk 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had another look: perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding was that it's not necessary to replicate every inline citation (Notes) in the References section. I thought References was reserved for the main References and important books or other publications upon which the work is largely based, or references that are used many times in the article. Is every inline citation being added to References now? (BTW, I really dislike the idea of a subpage: readers need to be able to see a Reference with one click.) Sandy 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut down on the number of references in the References section. NatusRoma | Talk 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object (changing from strong object above). NatusRoma, your ongoing work and efforts to address all objections raised is commendable and the article is impressive. The Notes/References style is much better. The length seems fine, but I'm still wondering about the low quality picture? I think the lead is fine now in terms of size and content. The talk page and history seem to indicate stability, and I don't see POV concerns there. The TOC doesn't overwhelm me, but when I glance at it, I find one heading vague: I know very little about Tom DeLay, but I shouldn't have to click on "Settlement in civil suit" to get an idea of what this heading refers to. Perhaps it should say Settlement in perjury civil suit or something more descriptive for the TOC? I did not get as far as reading enough content in the middle of the article to convince myself whether the article was neutral, as I found some cleanup issues at the top and bottom of the article. It would be a shame for excellent writing to be diminished by some silly, easy to fix cleanup issues. Some of these objections are more "cosmetic" than substantive, but these are the kinds of things that should feature Wiki's "best work":
    • Wiki links needed: In the lead, I had to go search for Wiki content on the terms Republican caucus, lobbying, and congressional districts. Perhaps a run-through of the entire article to check for Wiki-linking is in order? We have to keep all readers in mind, including non-USA readers and teenagers trying to write term papers, who just may not know all the terms involved.
    • Some copyedit cleanup may help: for example, In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during this period. "In 2005" and "during this period" seems repetitious. In order for the article to exhibit 1) "our best work" and 2a) "brilliant prose", a runthrough by a tight copy editor might help. I raise this not because the article doesn't read well, but because many FAs are being brought to the newly-established WP:FAR if the prose isn't brilliant, so it may be best to tighten it up as much as possible now.
    • Moving to the bottom of the article, I find some other cleanup and inconsistency issues: let's try to make sure the bottom of the article also represents the best work, because references are so important.
      • Per WP:EL, try to make sure all links are described. For example, on the documentary, what does "mid-decade" mean ? There is an inconsistency in how the links are described, and how extensive the descriptions are. We should clearly know what the link is, its title, and a brief description of the link.
      • Inconsistency in External Links, Further Reading and References: some use bio style (not always correctly), some don't. The link that really threw me is the CREW one, with the use of caps, and no quotes. Some External Links are fully labeled, some aren't. Some are labeled incorrectly, more like pipes. Further Reading and References aren't alphabetical. Some dates in references are wiki-linked, others aren't (do we need to wiki link dates in references?). Some sources (CNN, Time, etc.) are wiki-linked, others aren't. Some references don't put the author's name first, others do. Some have the author's first name before the last name. In general, just try to clean up the bottom of the article so that it truly represents out best work and a thorough, consistent bio style.
      • Categories should be alphabeticized.
  • Please let me know if you want me to take another look later. Sandy 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a more thorough look at things. See above about the lead picture; I've had trouble finding free images that suffice in terms of both size and resolution.

  1. The "Settlement in civil suit" section has a sufficiently descriptive title. The media allegation of perjury was not related to either the suit or the settlement. It is natural for a reader who does not know much about the subject of an article not to be able to guess everything from the article's table of contents.
  2. I have added wiki-links, though User:Tony1 has complained about the addition thereof.
  3. The antecedent of "in this period" is the phrase "in the early 2000s" in the previous sentence. I have changed "this" to "that" to make the connection more clear.
  4. I have added descriptions of the external links.
  5. I have alphabetized the Further Reading section. News articles in the References section that do not have authors' names available are listed in alphabetical order by publisher, and then by title. Is there a more correct practice? Throughout the References and Further Reading sections, I have placed authors' last names before their first names. What, exactly, is "bio style"?
  6. Throughout the sections pertaining to source and other external information, I have linked the first instance of a newspaper or media company's name, and left further instances unlinked. I have not linked the names of authors who are unlikely to have Wikipedia articles. The "accessdate" parameter of the {{cite x}} templates automatically links dates, while the "date" parameter does not.
  7. The categories do not need to be in alphabetical order. In fact, it is probably more useful for them to be grouped topically. The reason that the categories are currently not quite in alphabetical order is that {{Jack Abramoff}} forces the article into the category associated with the template. This category is "read" before any of those listed at the bottom of the page.

Please let me know if you have any other concerns. NatusRoma | Talk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Impressive article: well-written and well sourced. My one suggestion for improvement would be to round out the "Majority leader" section (after 3 but before 3.1). It skips too quickly from his election as majority leader to his exit. A short summary of his political actions during this period should be included. --Alex S 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.

(1) Confusion of registers, e.g., "was credited in recent years with compelling House Republicans to march in lock step" [my highlighting]. I think you're using a loose, colloquial expression here to refer to forcing them to follow the party's policy, but I'm unsure.

(2) Awkward prose, e.g., "exacting political retribution on opponents".

(3) Undesirable omission of "to" in quite a few places, e.g., "he helped start".

Plus lots of other little foibles, such as an en dash used where an em dash or a comma is required. Overlinked with dictionary terms and simple, undated years.

Sounds like a lovely chap. Tony 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support.Some refs have been lost doto edits after the first posted news story on Tom DeLay page. Everthing first posted on Tom DeLay has refs or is removed fast. If a story is short on a ref it is becouse a some lazy Johnny-come-lately editer deleted it. Political hack 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article, neat, well referenced, well done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and please keep leaving supports and objections. I have been working very slowly of late on overcoming the various objections, but my new job is taking a lot more of my time than I expected that it would. I hope to do substantial work on the article over the weekend. NatusRoma | Talk 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tom_DeLay/archive1&oldid=1138473988"