Talk:Michael Vick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs) 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Early proceedings In August 2008, Vick's finances were in such disarray that a bankruptcy judge had been asked to appoint a trustee to oversee them. U.S. Trustee W. Clarkson McDow, Jr. noted in court documents filed in Virginia that, by his own admission, Vick "has limited ability to arrange his finances and limited ability to participate in the bankruptcy case on an in-person basis." McDow wrote in his motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee "It appears that Mr. Vick has routinely relied upon others to make financial decisions for him, giving them discretionary control over large sums of money". McDow named Mary Wong and David A. Talbot as individuals who had obtained broad written authority to act as his attorney-in-fact over all of his financial affairs.[107] http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/printedition/2008/08/15/vick.html?cxntlid=inform_artr is a dead link. Since that is about contentious information I would have to say this article doesn't meet good article standards.

It also says their were dozens of creditors. How many is dozens? 36? 120?

The outcome of the case was an award of $4.5 million to Joel.[89] http://hamptonroads.com/node/504384 says Joel was awarded 4.6 million.

On September 26, 2007, 1st Source Bank, based in South Bend, Indiana, claimed in a federal lawsuit that it had suffered damages of at least $2 million as Vick and Divine Seven LLC of Atlanta had refused to pay for at least 130 vehicles acquired to be used as rental cars. The Specialty Financing Group of 1st Source provides financing for rental car fleets.[96]

I'm not sure what the Truckers bank plan but citation 96 is no bueno https://www.1stsource.com/business/truckers-bank-plan

You've got to at least have decent citations if you are saying he owes millions to companies and their arent reliable sources atttached. I'd say it fails PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in here, but I'd say the issues cited above are relatively easy to correct, and the article shouldn't be failed until the nominator has a chance to respond properly. These amount to minor concerns, really. I'm happy to take a thorough look at the article myself, if you think it would help. --Batard0 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie. It upset me that " Vick "has limited ability to arrange his finances and limited ability to participate in the bankruptcy case on an in-person basis." McDow wrote in his motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee "It appears that Mr. Vick has routinely relied upon others to make financial decisions for him, giving them discretionary control over large sums of money" " was cited with a dead link.

Then the part with a claim by 1stsource bank saying Vick owes them money is sourced with a link to their website? Maybe you didnt see Vick in his heyday in the early 2000's, but I did. And after all this guy has been through he needs a fair shake. And to just put "on hold" something that would make such contentious claims as well as not double check that they are accurate or at least not dead links... Well I'll just say whoever nominated it should give the article a thorough runthrough and then try again. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so I understand properly, are you quick-failing the article because of one broken link and one primary source? I think we can agree this seems a little thin; it might be worth citing the specific criterion under which it's being failed. In general, I'd suggest it's a good idea to assume good faith and allow for a response first. These are legitimate concerns, but they're not impossible to fix in a prompt way. The GA process is actually a good means of fixing issues like this that might otherwise go unnoticed for months, if not longer. Putting it "on hold" in some ways actually makes the correction of contentious or improperly sourced material more likely than failing it does. --Batard0 (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)