Talk:Eric Cantor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look over the article and make a GA status review. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial Feelings

After looking over the article, I like it. It is not an automatic GA, but I think it will pass (I will do an official "rubric" review shortly. I would like to get some feedback from other editors before making a decision. So let's start a discussion here. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• What about quick criteria #5 "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." vis a vis 2010 elections? Racepacket (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Cantor has limited significance as far as the 2010 elections. He is a relatively safe incumbent, and the only thing that could change is his promotion to Majority Whip. I am considering putting the article on hold until after the election.

Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I presume it is on hold until after the election then? Just asking since there's been no review progress since the note; the full review itself could still be done in the meantime. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading this article through a couple times, I noticed many problems with it, unfortunately. There are many uncited paragraphs, let alone statements. The majority of the House section is about a single 2010 incident, and not much of his actual career is mentioned. Are there any major bills he has written or sponsored? For that matter, the whole last paragraph regarding the incident is not only unsourced, but could probably be removed if not shrunk, it doesn't seem overly major. Lastly, it's odd to me that the 2008 and 2010 elections get their own sectins when all his other ones aren't mentioned; the elections themselves could be put in its own section in one-two paragraphs (it's partially that way now, but not entirely).

I trust that becoming majority whip could help this article grow, but until then, this still needs a good deal of work, and I have to fail this as a GA. I will note some good points though; the personal and political positions sections are pretty well done, and it satisfies NPOV, which is impressive for a current American politician in a fairly major role. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want everyone to know that I am still watching this article, and I am still keeping the nomination "on hold". Once Congressman Cantor has been sworn in as Majority Leader, I will conduct an appropriate review and will make a decision (at this point, the article looks like it will probably pass). Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also fail this article. As Wizardman states, it is full of WP:RECENTISM. The lead section is woefully inadequate. His nine years in the Virginia state legislature get less space than the 2010 campaign office incident. What people do in state legislatures is important, and surely more can be said than this; compare to the Hilda Solis#California State Legislature section, for example, which is a GA article. There is little description of most of his years in the House of Representatives and no discussion of how he came to rise so fast in the Republican leadership, which is probably the most interesting question to answer about his career. The "Political campaigns" section suffers from recentism, as Wizardman points out, and would be better merged into the biographical narrative where it would be integrated in with the rest of what he has done. The "Political positions" section seems somewhat selective in which issues it covers. At 12 kB (1957 words) readable prose size, the article is fundamentally too brief for a political figure of this stature.

I see no reason to hold this article's nomination until he becomes Majority Leader; that isn't going to change any of the article's shortcomings. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I agree with a user who mentioned (above) that this article concerns a controversial current event (quick criteria #5). Once Cantor is officially installed as Majority Leader, I think users will come to his page and make the necessary corrections. But until that time, I feel it is only fair to keep the article on hold. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the critique given above, WP:RECENTISM as well as quick criteria #5 should be enough to wrap this up. If the nominator wants to renominate after a re-write, then he should go to the back of the queue out of fairness to all of the other nominators that are waiting for the volunteer time of reviewers. Racepacket (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not fail this? Us441(talk)(contribs) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note

This nomination was failed by Wizardman on 29 October 2010.[1]. It seems that the nominator chose to revert this edit. I have restored the failed tremplate. If you wish to renominate, then please do so. But to do that place a new nomination template on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You have the history of what happened here wrong. The nominator was User:BLM Platinum, with this edit of August 16. It was then placed on hold by the first reviewer, User:Ryderofpelham123, with these edits of September 23. It was then failed by another reviewer, User:Wizardman, with these edits of October 29. It was then reverted back to 'on hold' by the original reviewer, Ryderofpelham123, with this edit of December 22; Ryderofpelham123 thought that his decision to place it on hold should not be overriden by another editor and that it should stay on hold until after Cantor had assumed the majority leader position and the article had gained more attention. As I (and some others) said above, I think the GAN should fail, but not for the reason you are giving. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that corrected history. Wizardman was not authorized by me or anyone else to fail the article. Therefore, I undid his inappropriate failure of the article. The original nomination stands. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that the nominator has done nothing to interfere with the GA review. I have not been in contact with the nominator and I, under the advice of other editors, made the decision to hold the article. I have decided to end the hold late Saturday, January 8. That is when I will publish a final assessment. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just note that GA nominations are usually expected to be completed in seven days, perhaps fourteen at most. Dragging it on for three-four months does no-one any good and damages the GA process. It is perfectly normanl for experienced GA reveiweres such as Wizardman to step in when reviewers go AWOL. I shall open a thread on this mess at WT:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I note also that the reviewer has not even bothered to contact the nominator to say that a review has been started. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A brief survey of recent edits shows that the article does not meet the stability criteria either. Looking at Ryderofpelham123's talk page, it appears that this reviewer is not particularly aware of the GA criteria and comments such as "After looking over the article, I like it." hardly inspire confidence. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I came across this article in October and began a review. At the time, on advice of other editors above, I decided to put the article on hold until the midterm elections were over and Congressman Cantor was sworn into his new position. Also, I take offense that you say I am not aware of the GA criteria. I have been doing GA reviews for quite a while. My comments above were initial reactions and not official assessments. Wizardman should have contacted me if he was planning to take over the nomination, for which he did not even conduct an official assessment. As far as contacting the nominator, I personally do not view that as common practice. In my experience, the most involved editors check their articles for updates. My decision stands, and this Saturday I will publish an official review. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your decision to place the article on a prolonged hold until after the election and/or new Congress was faulty and unnecessary (and the advice one editor gave you in this regard was faulty as well). BLPs for politicians do not usually change that much, even during an election season; most of their content is biographical narrative covering their whole life, not just what is happening 'now'. As an example, the John McCain article made both GA and later FA during the 2007–2008 presidential election season in which he became the Republican nominee. The "article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" GA prohibition guideline referenced above is for articles like John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 or 2010 FIFA World Cup or Working on a Dream Tour – articles about particular events that have a well-defined beginning and end. It makes no sense to put any of those three examples up for GA until that campaign, tournament, or tour is over, because until that happens the article isn't finished. BLPs, on the other hand, are essentially open-ended, and they can be put up for GA or FA at pretty much any time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The review will be given on Saturday, so the hold will be over. There is no point on saying what should've been done and what should not have been done. This was a small miscommunication blown way out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to the overwhelming controversy concerning this GA review, I have decided that in order to preserve the integrity of this process, I will request a second opinion and remove myself from this article's GA review. However, in accordance with the rule that no one closely associated with the article can conduct a review, I expect that no one heavily involved in this debate will take on the review. I would just like this time to say I am disappointed at how this situation unfolded. I feel many editors blew a small problem out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as my thoughts on the article, I feel it is almost GA quality, but needs expansion before being promoted. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd Opinion review

Ok, following the abandonment of the review and the lack of interest shown by the nominator, I shall conclude this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguations: Seven dead links found, can be seen here. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: blind date links to a disambiguation page, there is no Wp page on this, perhaps link to Wikitionary if you feel this is necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is too short, it needs to fully summarize the artcile, see WP:LEAD for more on this.

   There are a number of stray sentences which need consolidating into paragraphs

   The article satisfies the reasonably well written criteria

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Seven dead links as noted above.

   Several unstated statements remain.

   Those live sources used appear reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted above there is little about his activity in the House of Representatives, especially in the early years. Has he written or sponsored any bills? How did he rise so fast in the Republican leadership? His career in the Virginia legislature could do with a major expansion.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears to be relatively neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There is continuous editing activity, much has improved the article since nomination, but points already raised in the earlier review are not being addressed.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This review was started in September, following nomination in August 2010. the nominator has not responded to the review, so I am not listing it at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the formal review, Jezhotwells. I'm in agreement with your findings, as my previous comments here would suggest. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would just like to state I did not "abandon" the review. I chose to remove myself due to the controversy surround my hold. However, this review does seem reasonable and I must say that I endorse it. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, rereading this page, I must retract my endorsement. According to the rules of GA nominations, no one closely associated with the article is allowed to review the article. I would consider Jezhotwells (talk numerous posts on this page "associated" with the article, and I feel that the review should be invalidated. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)