Talk:Charles Rangel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is well written. I just have a few style hangups, but feel free to disagree.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I don't know if we should use the phrase "troubled childhood" unless a source uses that phrase.

   "serving since 1971 and the third-longest currently serving member of the House of Representatives" is awkward. Maybe merge the last part with a different sentence?

   The phrase "a pragmatic approach to getting things done" (both times) is not very encyclopedic.

   You might want to link the words "black", "white", and "Hispanic" somewhere.

   The word "presently" doesn't mean "currently".

   "freshman congressman"—I'd use "freshman representative" or "congressional freshman" just to avoid the rhyme.

   "Governor Nelson Rockefeller"—you might as well say which state.

   "did take over control"—"did take control"?

   The Political positions section ought to be organized and/or rewritten in paragraph format. For example, the Vote Smart ratings start with the Pro-Choice rating and end with the Pro-Life rating; these should go together, right? And does it matter that the Arab American Institute graded him in the 50s–60s? As a reader I don't know what that actually means.

   Can the Political positions section and Political image section be combined under one heading?

   "Somewhat troubled childhood" seems an accurate summary of what the early life section describes.

   Fixed wording as you suggested.

   Changed to "with a pragmatic approach towards finding political and legislative compromises."

   "African American" is linked the first time it's used. The other two seem unnecessary to me per linking common English words, but I can do it if you feel strongly about it.

   On second thought, I added a few links to ethnicity articles.

   The use here of "presently" seems to match definition 2 in this dictionary entry.

   Done.

   This is actually the second reference to Rockefeller, so I shortened and unlinked it. The first reference does give the state.

   Done.

   Reorganization done, and Arab American Institute rating removed.

   That looks much better. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

   GA/FA-level articles on American politicians usually have two sections, one "Political positions" that summarizes their views on various issues, and one "Public image" or "Cultural and political image" or "Political image" that fills in what the person's image is as seen by the public and by biographers and writers. So the two are really distinct sections.

   OK, as long as the distinction's clear. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What's the story with Ref. 14 (this)? Is it written by a student or what? It looks like a school assignment. On that note, there's an aside "(and those who did would suffer terrible fates),[14]" which seems like needless editorializing. The reference doesn't apply to Rangel so this borders on WP:SYNTH.

   Ref. 163 (Wall Street Journal) is a dead link.

   Only a few references have access dates; you should probably be consistent about it.

   There are a few scattered statements with no footnotes but it's cited well enough to meet GA.

   Regarding ref 14, yes, it was student-written but it was a finalist for a competition prize so I thought it would squeak by as an RS. Upon further thought, I've replaced it as the source for the delayed desegregation and taken out the POW aside.

   Regarding the WSJ link, I've replaced it with a cite to a different publisher of the same AP story.

   Regarding access dates, WP guidelines and standard practice on this are always shifting somewhat; I've been involved in some of the discussions that are at WT:CITE's top-of-page "Retrieval dates: redundant for sources with official publication dates" links. But I generally like the minimalist approach, so I've commented out the access dates here for everything that already has a publication date (one of the recommended approaches).

   That's good. I don't care for access dates in general. —Designate (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very good coverage. The Korean War section is a little lengthy, but I don't have any specific critique of it. The Political image section, however, is definitely too long. The sections on the Bush/Cheney remarks, the East Harlem remark, the Sarah Palin remark just seem extraneous. These could fit into one or two short paragraphs and still get the overall point across. It would help to summarize some of the more detailed sections on his ethics investigations. For example, you have "The Ethics Committee agreed the following month to investigate the matter. On February 26, 2010, the Ethics Committee issued its report." This kind of thing can be trimmed.

   Regarding the "Political image" section controversial remarks, I agree that most of them don't need to be spelled out in full detail in the regular article text, so I've moved the bulk of them into a new "Notes" section that will hold explanatory footnotes. I left in the Bull Connor remark and Cheney exchanges, since that's the most well known of these. Next I'll see if I can do some of the same kind of thing for the ethics investigations.

   That's a big improvement. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This is difficult to ascertain. Much of the article reads like a Controversies section, but it's unavoidable given his history. I'm going to pass this, and if other editors disagree they can take it to GAR.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No obvious problems.

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):

   Check over the image description pages. The source for Rangel's signature is a dead link. The district map page on Commons needs some kind of a cleanup.

   Regarding the signature image, on the Commons page I've added an alternate link for the source and I've added appropriate categories.

   Regarding the District 15 image, I've improved the categories, but I'm not sure I can clean the page – isn't all that history necessary to document its move from WP to Commons and the GFDL/CC status of it?

   That's fine, I guess. It just seemed like a lot of documentation for a public domain image. —Designate (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll put this on hold. —Designate (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and thoughtful comments. I've begun the process of making changes to the article in response. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pass — Some sections still need tightening, but you've addressed the major problems so I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Thanks for your quick response. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much again for the review! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)