Talk:Ross Perot/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HAL333 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

You have a great framework for this article, but it lacks meat. My advice is to read some of the books in the bibliography and add some nice flesh to the article. If you fix these issues and bulk up the text, I think this would be a GA. Best wishes.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I would advise turning the electoral history section into a wikitable, as seen at Bill Clinton. It would make it a little easier to digest.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
What you lack with sources is some good literary references. I'm also not quite sure of the website "On the Issues." Maybe cite the books and articles that it cites.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
You have all the necessary points, but you lack details. For someone as prominent as Perot, this is kind of a short article with only 50,000 bytes. For comparison, George Wallace has over 70,000.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The signature image could be improved, make it a transparent svg.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Response

@HAL333: I was just about to log off, but before I do:

What you lack with sources is some good literary references. - please see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable. What specifically do you believe needs to be cited that isn't?
You have all the necessary points, but you lack details. For someone as prominent as Perot, this is kind of a short article with only 50,000 bytes. For comparison, George Wallace has over 70,000. - please see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage - Imposing arbitrary size restrictions, rather than directly addressing GA issues of coverage, conciseness, focus and the use of summary style. is given as a mistake to avoid. You note that the article includes all the necessary points - is there something else that should be included?

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: This is my first try at assessing an GA.

On the second bit, here are some things that should be included: (I just used the first section as an example)
- Early life, education, and military career

What religious background was he raised in?
What did he study in college?
How did he meet his wife?

- Just add more interesting anecdotes throughout that give the reader a better feel for Perot. For example, just going through this [article], I read that he dug his own father's grave and never had more than one pair of shoes until he joined the military, which he gave as an example of government waste. Just those two things really help me gain a deeper understanding
This is representative of what should be done in each section. I mentioned using literary references because I assumed you wouldn't be able to find news-articles with really good information on Perot. I may be wrong on that point. Just pull out more information from the available references. Cheers.~ HAL 333 06:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: The criteria of if the article is broad enough is not as strict as, eg, Featured Article Candidates; it doesn't require such "interesting anecdotes" DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t think the fact that his father died young and Ross dug his own grave is relevant? All we currently have is a single sentence saying he changed his name to honor him, whatever that means. ~ HAL 333 15:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Not really, no DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: I’ve requested a second opinion. You should make some of those changes in the mean time. Cheers. ~ HAL 333 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the part about his father dying when Perot was 25, but the digging of the grave thing isn't really important DannyS712 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion: Agree with nominator. Perot dug his father's grave is an interesting factoid that I think should be in the article if at all possible, but at the moment is not really workable into the prose. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: given the second opinion above, is there anything else needed? DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. It's all good to go. ~ HAL 333 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]