Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The great Jay (talk · contribs) 06:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is gonna be my first GA nomination review. Let's see if this article has improved since the last time it was nominated for being a GA (2008). Blue Jay (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose is at 4089 bytes, I think that is good enough.

MoS seems good.

Sources look reliable.

No original research here.

No copyright violations.

Article looks broad.

Article looks focused.

Article is Neutral and stable, as it doesn't have bias, and there is no vandalism and edit wars going on right now.

All pics are free, tagged or relevant.

Good job! This article has improved considerably since its last nomination in 2008. I only have a few suggestions:

"Wilson was unable to convince the U.S. Senate to ratify that treaty or allow the United States to join the League however." Maybe you could put however at the start of the sentence?

"Wilson is generally ranked by historians and political scientists as an above average president." You can change above average to words and phrases like upper tier, or upper half. You don't need to, though.

"Despite his health and against the counsel of his advisers, Wilson still entertained the idea of running for a third term, asking Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby to nominate him for president at the 1920 Democratic National Convention." Maybe you could change the word entertained to "fond of", and you can put "was" between Wilson and still.

Other than that, it is good to go! If you want, you could let it become an FA. If you plan on doing that, I wish you good luck!

I disagree that the article is stable, as it has had more than 50 edits, many of them significant, within the last 30 days. I suggest that the editors who have been actively editing the article be invited to comment here at the review. That includes BlueMoonset, Rjensen, Politicsfan4, buidhe and OgamD218 If they are in accord that article shortfalls have been addressed, then the GA process can proceed to its conclusion. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, very well then. Let's wait for them. Have all the other issues been addressed? Blue Jay (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have had articles I nominated, reviewed, but have never acted as a reviewer. My own experience is that the reviewers have asked for 15-25 article changes - things like adding references, clarity of prose, deleting content not relevant to the topic, etc. Process usually took days. Often a second set of requests after I addressed the first. Just saying. For this article I have no knowledge of the topic, just saw that there were editors active other than the one who nominated it, so suggested they have an opportunity to express their thoughts. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:The great Jay I have addressed the issues you mentioned. Please let me know what else you feel can be done to improve the article. User talk:David notMD, input from those editors is welcome and was sought and received last week before the article was nominated, parts of the discussion can be found in the section above. The main reason why so many major edits have been made in the last 30 days is bc multiple editors were working to prepare the article for GAN. OgamD218 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• As an independent comment, I'll say that I think the constructive edits do not reflect a lack of stability - no content is being challenged, in particular. But I will ask the nominator, @OgamD218: is it possible to start a Political career of Woodrow Wilson article and see if some of the article's content may be better merged to Early life and academic career of Woodrow Wilson, Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, Woodrow Wilson and race (and if there are any more). With all of these existing, the bio reaches too much detail. Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif there's been a lot of discussion regarding the article's length and ways to reduce it. Early life and academic career of Woodrow Wilson and Woodrow Wilson and race were originally created with that purpose in mind. At this point, I think the article's length is more or less appropriate and I do not see any way of shortening it without sacrificing relevant content. I feel the need to mention the fact that this page is actually significantly shorter than the main pages of most other 2 term U.S. Presidents, being 145,142 bytes, compared to 214,974 for Theodore Roosevelt. The main page for William Howard Taft, who was President for half the length of time as Wilson and did not preside over the country's participation in a World War, is 143,185 bytes-essentially the same length. OgamD218 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The great Jay Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions has instructions at Finishing the review. Congratulations on managing your first GA review. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)