Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 4 May 2008.

Jack Kemp edit

previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008)

At nomination 1, I had just responded to most of the negative feedback the day it was closed. I think it might have passed had it stayed up another day. However, I have expanded the page a bit by sourcing details from U. S. News & World Report, Atlantic Monthly, and Newsweek to supplement the page that I felt was already pretty high quality. Its length still remains within the same range as the other world leaders noted on the first nomination although it is longer than the typical WP biography. I continue to believe that this is among the finest articles on WP and hope a few people now agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as before, only more strongly. With a penetrating focus on the various phases of Kemp's life and career, an eminently readable style, and almost 300 footnotes (!), no question. Biruitorul (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Terrific writing, the article is very comprehensive on his entire life and careers, and neutral on all portions of it. Hello32020 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Support Oppose - Too many simple grammar mistakes and other issues.
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of the lead: "ranging from his conservative opposition to abortion more centrist stances such as advocacy of immigration reform." Place a connecting word after abortion, and try to avoid a pair of "tos" so close together.
  • "Kemp also co-founded the American Football League Players Association, which he served as president for five terms." I think the flow of the sentence could be improved. How about "Kemp also co-founded the American Footballl League Players Association, for which he served five terms as president."
  • The last paragraph of the lead gets repetitive. Try this: "Since returning to public life, Kemp has continued a career of public service. He has been active as a political advocate and commentator, as well as serving on corporate and non-profit organization boards. Kemp has served in official capacities to promote American football and has been a political advocate for the Republican Party and retired professional football players." Also see if you can avoid having two "servings" that close.
  • I know you need to mention the Time cover in the text in order to use it, but it doesn't work for me in the story. At least get rid of the Mars part, which is completely off-topic.
  • We have two issues. 1.) I have found a paucity of free pics for a modern leader of Kemp's level of historical importance and we need more pics. Thus, we must use fair use. 2.) Fair use images must have some encyclopedic value. Just saying Kemp was on the cover of Time. Look at the picture is not really an encyclopedic value. However, when you can say the editors at Time wrote a story on the deliberations regarding the complicated decision on whether to put Dole-Kemp on the cover instead of the discovery of Life on Mars, the image becomes encyclopedic because it relates to a significant controversy or public dilemna. I hope that convinces you to allow it to stay as it is. Please read the citation about the controversy as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was controversial, I think you should adjust the text, as I don't really sense that now. Insets are commonly used on magazine covers. Consider putting it like this: "which was so close to being on the cover that Time wrote about how difficult their decision was". Then move the citation with the story to the end of the paragraph, or use it twice if you prefer. Giants2008 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks just fine. One more little thing: "August 19, 1996 Time magazine". Put "issue of" in the middle. Other than that, it looks good. Giants2008 (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence of Post-political life: "also known as the first of the two "Reagan tax cuts"". Delete the second "the".
  • A bit later: "even George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary, John Snow, are a believers." Lose "a".
  • 2nd paragraph of Presidential bid (1988): His campaign was on an early positive course with many key early endorsements in New Hampshire," Flip key and early.
  • 2nd paragraph of Cabinet: "Kemp was constantly at odds with White House Budget Director, Richard Darman who opposed... Remove comma and place after Darman.
  • Next sentence: "HOPE was first proposed to John Sununu, the White House chief of staff in June 1989... Either put another comma after "staff" or change it to this: "HOPE was first proposed to White House chief of staff John Sununu in June 1989...
  • You're going to hate me for this one, but reference publishers only need to be linked at first appearance, and the same goes for the work column.
  • Is there a policy that you are referring to. I have seen it this way more often. The thinking is that readers don't read through every ref and linking it each time means it will be linked in the few refs they read. Imagine a reader reading much more than even 5 refs in this article. It would take him hours to read the article. Out of 5 refs he is only likely to see the same publisher or work maybe twice at most, but likely he would see a bunch of singletons. I think much like linking renews in separate charts in the same article it should with separate footnotes. Places other than refs that links repeat in FA articles are infoboxes and image captions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's just a guideline, see WP:CONTEXT: "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following." For more on the issues caused by this, see the current FAC USS Orizaba (ID-1536). Pay particular attention to User:Circeus' comments. Giants2008 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked SandyGeorgia about this, and she said linking every publisher is overlinking and not necessary (her words). Just throwing it out there. Giants2008 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we only link the first usage, because a reader is suppose to look up the linked page the first time he sees it and remember it for the rest of the article. We make no assumption that the reader looks at every link. In an article with 300 links suppose you are looking at the 250th, but you did not look at the 64th, should we assume you know where to find the proper linkages. The purpose of the link in the ref is to allow the reader to understand the significance of the publisher and/or work. However, if you delink all subsequent links the reader will not be able to quickly differentiate between the unlinked terms and previously linked ones. Sandy has been passing all the other FACs that use this prevailing convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Continuing down the WP:FAL see David Suzuki: The Autobiography and History of Norwich City F.C.. There is no preference on repetitive linking of publisher and works. It is currently a matter of preference with almost all recent FAs that link publishers and works at all repeating linkages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that footnotes often move around. This instability is the nature of wikipedia. It is a Sisyphean task to keep only the first instances wikilinked. A guideline like this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If you think it is low-value link then you could remove it with no resistance. If there is resistance, it's not worth a fight. --maclean 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not how I would do it, but the explanation is convincing enough for me to strike. Giants2008 (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot a great information in here, but as Tony would say: "Get a fresh pair of eyes to look at it."
Giants2008 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Giants oppose is not unsupported, it continues below (it would help if reviewers would keep commentary together, as this appears as an invalid support, without commentary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, both for not keeping my comments together and for not seeing this comment for two days. I'll do it differently in the future. Giants2008 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Giants2008. Although I've only read the lead and the first section, I can tell this article needs quite a bit of work.
    • The lead is kind of a mess. First, I don't get the structure. Why does it start with his career as a politician, then move to his time as a football player, then go on with the time after his political life, and finish by mentioning that he was in the Army (when? no one knows)? Second, it doesn't mention that Kemp left public life and then a paragraph starts with "Since returning to public life". Furthermore: "Kemp has held duties in official capacities to promote American football and has been a political advocate for the Republican Party and retired professional football players." Of course he was an advocate for the Republicans; he was in office as a member of the party. "Kemp is also a veteran of the United States Army who has authored, co-authored, and edited several books." What has his having been in the Army have to do with the books he wrote? They don't seem to deal with the military.
      • I have swapped the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. This gives the WP:LEAD an opening paragraph describing his most important/notable roles. Then subsequent paragraphs give high level detail related to these important roles in sequential order. I moved the bit about the military to complete this reordering.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kemp, who was born, raised and educated in Los Angeles, California, attended Fairfax High School, which is known both for its historically high concentration of Jewish students and for producing celebrities." The fact that he grew up in Los Angeles is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
    • "Although by the end of the century, Fairfax had become a majority Hispanic high school,[6] over 95 percent of Kemp's classmates were Jewish and he became a supporter of Jewish causes." By the end of what century? I presume you mean the 20th. Then it should be "would become"; the "had" implies that it had a Hispanic majority by the time Kemp attended it.
    • "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides.[8] The school is located on Melrose Avenue, and its alumni include Herb Alpert, David Arquette, Lenny Kravitz, Ricardo Montalban, David Janssen, Timothy Hutton and Mickey Rooney.[9][6]" The flow of these sentences is kind of weird. First it talks about the school's alumni, then it moves on to its location and then goes back to the alumni.
    • "Despite his proximity to the trappings of celebrity and entitlement, Kemp learned to embrace diversity and hard work during his experience working with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles." What? "Proximity to the trappings of celebrity and entitlement" normally turns people into bigots?
    • "Kemp's habit of rigorous reading showed in high school where he read history and philosophy books" If he had this habit before high school - as this sentence suggests - then it already it showed before by him reading other books.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revised text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was hoping this article would develop a bit, if I wait a little, since you were discussing it with a lot of other editors. I still feel there are lots of problems in this article. Its structure is often unclear and it needs copyediting.
          • "Jim Mora, who would become a future NFL head coach" That's redundant. He already was a future NFL head coach.
          • The lack of dates in the "Early life" section makes kind of hard to follow. When did he graduate from high school? And from college? Were his military service and his studies at Long Beach State University and California Western University concurrent?
            • I added 1953 for his high school graduation. The Marriage section says "she graduated from Occidental College in 1958, which was a year after Kemp graduated" so it is clear he graduated college in 1957.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that Cookie Gilchrist was traded to the Broncos in 1965 is mentioned twice
            • One is in directs quotes (primary source). The other is a tertiary reference to a secondary source that is properly cited. Does that count as twice? A lot of times people will say something and you may not know whether they are telling a story with precise details. Thus, I added a properly sourced tertiary statement. Let me know if this is wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why are Kemp's appearances in magazines give so much coverage? Kemp's campaign for Congress, on the other, isn't covered at all.
            • A person like Kemp was probably in hundreds if not thousands of magazine stories over the course of his life. This article cites dozens as secondary sources because they are WP:RS. In addition it notes his most important magazine cover appearance and how it almost did not happen. It also refers to a politically charged magazine story about homosexual affairs. It is the only reference I found to this controversy which was an important part of his political history since it occurred while he was a political staffer. Having an article sourced by Time, Newsweek, Atlantic Monthly, U. S. News & World Report, and the New York Times is a good thing. I began my attempt to clean up this article at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library (BECPL). I asked them what kind of sources they had for his political career and they said they had a file of clippings from the Buffalo News. If the main Buffalo Library had nothing but newpaper clippings to summarize one of the three most important politicians (after Grover Cleveland and Millard Fillmore) in the history of the city, then dozens of quality magazine articles from dozens of political pundits is a huge step up for the worlds repository of Kemp information. As for his congressional campaign the article states that he ran on some issues advised by Nixon staffers and it describes the state of his district. I confess that many politician articles have complete details of electoral results. I will put in a request with the BECPL for his congressional electoral results. This will get me numerical results in all likelihood. I have no indication of the history of his electoral campaigns. I have no information of hotly contested years. I imagine as a Republican from a traditionally Democratic district there were some interesting contests over the years. The article at 10300+ words is already challenging the not much more than 10000 word limit. Further detail on his congressional races would need to be in a separate article, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are quite a few weasel terms: "he was considered a John F. Kennedy throwback", "Kemp is described as the most proactive combatant", "he was heralded as a 'courageous voice in the wilderness'", "He is as fondly remembered for", "and he is described as having", "Kemp is known as an independent politician" just to name a few from "Congress" section. Try mentioning who said these things.
            • Is it still a WP:WEASEL violation to use such phrasing when almost every sentence in the article is followed immediately with a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Further on this issue:
              • "he was considered a John F. Kennedy throwback" -Clifford May reported in the New York Times that a political science professor said as much and two other articles later in the article make JFK comparisons.
              • "Kemp is described as the most proactive combatant"
              • "he was heralded as a 'courageous voice in the wilderness'"
              • "He is as fondly remembered for"
                • I don't know a better way to incorporate the fact that Karen Tumulty and Mike Duffy (not sure if this is the right guy from the dab) use his hair as the standard by which politician's hair is measured. This is a tertiary reference to a valid secondary WP:RS. He is viewed by many secondary sources as a handsome, JFK-like fellow with good hair. He eventually got to play a role where he was the stud quarterback in afterlife as a politician. I don't know what to say other than that I included 300+ refs so you can see for yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "and he is described as having"
              • "Kemp is known as an independent politician"
          • I don't get why much of the paragraph that starts with "In the early 21st century, Kemp" is in this particular section. I also don't get the point of sentences like "Pete du Pont was another progressive conservative" at all. That whole section seems to need a better structure.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is incredibly long, and being over 100k, unwieldy. Perhaps make a page devoted to his football career and to his political career and "main article" link them with summations of both in their own categories. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And they are in violation of MoS guidelines also for their excessive length. And "only" 62k? You mean "only" violation MoS by 2k, when MoS tries to have people top off around 50k total? And for your information, the "text" portion is how you read "readable prose" according to the tool, and that doesn't include references which even the MoS includes, so, I would guess you are a good 20k over. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violations of MoS are violations of MoS. If an FA is more than 10 printable pages, then it should be removed from FA status until it is trimmed down. Your page is 3 printable pages greater than the maximum suggested under MoS. Please, if you want to follow standard formating procedures, do what is recommended. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dismiss your arguments, but you miss the point. The guideline says the problem area is when the articl is much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words and Kemp is at 10383. It also says that although over 60KB in length is probably a candidate to be split the real problem is at over 100KB and Kemp is at 62.6KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do not bring up off topic things such as that. 2. 10,000 "words" is meaningless, since you should be looking at the readable prose amount, which says 50k. 50k of small words could be over 10,000 words, and 50k of large words could be under 10,000 k. But its still the same size, which makes it the same download rate. As a frequent user of dialup, it makes it extremely hard to load pages. Hence part of the reason why it is there to begin with. Also, that 100kb use to refer to total size, until it was altered to say readable prose without consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I talk about 60KB I am refering to this guideline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am refering to - "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose". Now, to the "rule of thumb" it use to read "total size" not "readable prose", so you should note that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten it down to 9995 words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


More comments - After another look, I'm actually more concerned about the article.

Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major error: Why is John Rauch's name incorrect in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting involved in edit conflict after edit conflict tonight. I found a lot more problems with the article, but they will have to wait until tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. I'll try again, in multiple parts. Here goes.[reply]

  • College: "I guess we won" needs quotation marks and probably a cite.
  • Marriage and family: Why are the ages of his children not mentioned? At least tell us how old his first child was so we can figure the rest out.
  • Football career: Please state that the AFL was a new league. It will provide context for the next sentence, showing that this new league needed overlooked players like Kemp to fill rosters. It's touched on to a certain extent, but I think it can be improved.
    • added "newly-formed"
  • Chargers era: It's almost unheard of for a pro quarterback to finish near the top of the league in rushing statistics (maybe in college). Maybe some more info about this.
    • Anything else would be WP:OR. I researched this football section when I was in Buffalo, where they had a lot of AFL resources. All I can do from Chicago is point to webpages of stats. I don't have much else to say, but it speaks for itself. He must have run a lot of quarterback sneaks or something, but I would be hazarding a guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual, but if you don't have any info, there's nothing you can do about it. Giants2008 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in section: Dash in first class.
  • Lou Saban era: Why is Pro Football capitalized?
  • Next paragraph: "Injuries, including a broken finger, kept Kemp from performing for most of the 1962 season." Replace "performing" with "playing".
  • Third paragraph of section: Al Davis spying on the Bills needs a cite. I don't know if the book cite following the next sentence is supposed to reference this, but we should always be careful with living people. Also, what does this have to do with Kemp?
    • I thought putting the same ref after both adjacent sentences would be overkill, but I will add one to the first if you like. Note this is related to Kemp because of the subsequent season that mentions the slow start. This just makes it clear that the slow start was encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It normally wouldn't be necessary to use the same citation in consecutive sentences, but potentially libellous facts should always be handled with caution. Giants2008 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who called him a clubhouse lawyer?
    • The book is back in Buffalo at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library. I can't double check it from here, but the citation refs the first three sentences in this paragraph as I recall. What should I do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A google exact term search on "Jack Kemp" "Clubhouse lawyer" yields one of the books already listed in the refs, but for some reason I can not view it on my computer. If you can see it can you get the ref for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at what I found: Schultz, Randy (2003). Legends of the Buffalo Bills. Sports Publishing LLC, page 26. ISBN 1582616876. Giants2008 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the one. I thought I already had used the book. Anyways, I can not see the google book result in my browser right now. Feel free to add the appropriate text or wait until I am somewhere that I can see the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did this for you. If you want, I could attempt to format this like the other books used, with page numbers for each citation. Up to you, though. Giants2008 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to see a cite for Paul Lowe's awards (or is this referenced in the following sentence?). Giants2008 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe these facts predate my involvement with the article. I arrived when it was 12.1KB, and I took it to its current state of 159.1KB. I have done a lot of checking to make sure I had cites for Kemp's MVP's and recall confirming that Lowe won the others. I can not say which ref backs this up, but one of the two should if I recall. Looking at the 12.1 KB version] it use to just say they shared the MVP in a succession box. So I guess it is actually my spotty citations here because I only cared about the Kemp citations, but I can't get the cites for you from 550 miles away. I will check here in Chicago and see if they have any information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

  • Several suggestions for Joe Collier era: To avoid repetition, try this: "which was played for the right to represent the AFL in Super Bowl I". Capitalize star in All-star twice in same sentence. Why was the loss to the Oilers bad? If it was a blowout, briefly mention it. In last paragraph of section, lose Joe and Jack.
  • Another Jack in John Rauch era.
  • Career summary: Try this: He led Buffalo to three straight Eastern Division titles, and the 1964 and 1965 American Football League championships". I don't like the placement of the receivers. See if you can find a better spot.
  • Would like to see a cite for the 20 ten-year AFL players.
    • That predates my involvement with the article. However, I beleive in passing I remember seeing a fact like that somewhere. Again, I can't cite most of the AFL stuff from Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congress: "a football fan like United States President Richard Nixon, who White House Advisor Robert Finch, and... I think you can see this one.
  • Next paragraph: Capitalize democrat.
  • Another Jack later in paragraph.
  • Last paragraph of section: References are like this (128)(127). Please reverse.
  • Presidential bid: "The political pundits recognize him however as a visionary idea man." Really needs changes: "The political pundits recognized him, however, as a visionary" and maybe find another term to replace "idea man".
    • I get real lazy about rereading quotes, but if you went throught the 200 or so online quotes you would find the phrase man of ideas, idea guy, idea man at least a half dozen times. I know this is better than idea guy, but do you prefer man of ideas?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least change "recognize" to "recognized". If that was a common phrase used to describe him, it's hard to change it. How does "visionary thinker" sound? Giants2008 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling for this article, but hopefully you understand my concerns. Giants2008 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have all these eyes on the page, can someone address the talk page concern of where the Jr. came from.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment made previously on the article talk, but no response there. In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description, so it's rather confusing. Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral. Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets". Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or is a pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion. And to be clear, I'm not saying or implying that any editor is personally biased. .... A separate comment about FAC: There has been good progress with this article, but I don't think the writing is all that great yet. Lots of issues have been identified and corrected above. I've made a fair few edits myself. But my feeling is that FAC is the place to bring an article that is already well-copyedited, and just needs a minor tweak or two. This was a major issue in the last FAC, and basically the article needs a new set of eyes from someone with great writing skills. That said, the facts and references and coverage all seem to be of FA quality to me. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let me say I am no serious scholar of politics. You can tell by my major contributions by project that I only have one check other than Kemp by WP:PLT. It is quite possible that I have misinterpreted a political scenario that someone who thrives on politics would understand better than I. It is also quite possible that in my reading of the 300 or so references for this article I have misinterpreted the secondary source in a few places. The first few sentences of this articleparagraph are all refed by one New York Times article. You are free to edit to correct my interpretation. In fact, I welcome it. This was not the flavor of edit that was reverted. Your edits were reverted because 1. facts were moved from one place to another without regard for citation (I.E. a fact from a sentence reference by one source was moved to another sentence reference by other sources), 2. high school facts were moved to the youth paragraph. 3. facts were removed that help us understand his background. If you make a correction that helps us better understand/interpret a reference and retain the WP:ATT and WP:V qualities of the article it would be welcome. I welcome the eyes. My own eyes were weary. For every ref you see included in the article there are two or three that I read and did not include so my eyes are definitely getting weary. It is quite a responsibility to properly sketch an encyclopedic biography like this and really think a person who is relevant to as many projects as Kemp is relevant to should have a lot more hands willing to get involved. I understand my citing style may be tough to work with, but that is how you get an article seriously considered at FA using the internet. I am here to get feedback toward an FA. I am going to reread the article once or twice and see if I can better present the facts. It may take me a while. I am not so sure I want to engage in a debate over whether the semantics of reform vs. change are appropriate. Like I said. I am not trying to POV this guy. I am actually a lifelong Democrat and you can look at this tool to count the edits at Jesse Jackson, Michelle Obama, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Toni Preckwinkle and Sandi Jackson to see what I mean. I in fact do not know enough about the political spectrum to say whether you are in fact claiming I am POVing some republican ideologies since Kemp had a liberal bent. I just attempted to paraphrase or pick relevant quotes from various WP:RSs. What would be best is if you think I am POVing, note sentences and words just like some of the edits above and I will go line by line with you. The more your corrections get into iterpreting sociopolitical stuff the longer each response will take. A lot of the above has been just getting grammar and citations correct. Choosing the proper words to correctly relay facts is a slightly more complicated issue that will take longer, but I am willing to go there to get the article right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't understand your reply. My comment notes exactly something I think is non-neutral, and says why. It is also states clearly that I do not think you are biased (and I've said that 4 times now). Intent is not the issue, and I wish you'd just stick to my very specific issues with the text instead of manufacturing an attack on your integrity out of nothing. Good grief. As to the rest, my opinion is that the writing isn't polished yet, and you've had several dozen specific comments about that in this FAC and the one last week. Disagreeing with my attempts to help doesn't change that. Bottom line, as it stands I oppose this nomination for the reasons above. However, I don't see much constructive coming out my involvement here or edits to the article, so I'll just bow out and leave it to the deliberations of others. Jpmonroe (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Kemp&diff=195312078&oldid=195245691 . I screwed up the edit. Check out the added ref and see if you still have a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed your problem above. I imagine you might better understand the semantic nuances and would love for your advice. My comments that you say you do not understand above are probably more related to the comments that you made on your user talk page yesterday about me unknowingly pushing a point by word choice. I apologize if you did not like my joke about threatening to take action against you for calling me a Republican (I don't truly feel being a Republican is that bad a thing. When I was going door-to-door in Indiana this past weekend for the Obama campaign I even told the Republicans I hope they make their voice known because I believe in a Democracy). It seems to me that wikipedia is at a loss for your lack of patience with me. You have erased our discoure on your talk page, but at one point you said I've been biting my tongue, but your writing is generally poorly organized. Random facts here and there, and then back to the same facts in completely different paragraphs. My problem is that I am working from seven or eight hundred articles and piecing facts together. It is probably more common for a person to have a few biographies to work from rather than a hodge podge of magazine and newspaper articles, but JFK has no biography so I am working with what I have. I would prefer to reply to your directed comments than to just lose you. At one point yesterday you said you wold not oppose. Then although the article was unchanged you opposed for some reason probably related to my joke on your user talk page. I apologize if I offend. Wikipedia would be better off if you would point out topics that you think I have discussed in several parts of the article inappropriately rather than you just give up on me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Fantastic work, Tony. Keeps getting better, though I think it's passed into the boundaries of "too much of a good thing." I'd support splitting Kemp's football career off. I kind of feel that I share the blame, since I suggested expanding his football career the first time around, but I feel that it's definitely worth splitting off now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the a couple of problems with splitting the article.
      1. The article is not really that long compared to his peer group. Look at Rice, C. & Clinton, H. among others.
      2. Although I could scale down the football section here, while I am here in Chicago I could not beef up the football career section into a quality dedicated article that describes his college career (Los Angeles resources needed) and his professional career (Buffalo/ Los Angeles/ San Diego resources needed although possibly all detail could be found in Buffalo) in detail. I am aware that since he was a Little All American, he was a star college and probably star high school football player. Someone with Los Angeles resources should tackle that topic. From Buffalo, someone could probably detail each season of Kemp's AFL career. I am just not capable of creating a quality split article from here. As I recall the information was available at the Buffalo Public Library.
      3. The current article has approximately the proper depth to describe his football career for a complete bio, but further detail would probably be too much of a good thing.
      4. Do you think the average person looking for Jack Kemp's football career comes here and feels overwhelmed? Probably not. Do you think the average person is left wanting for more football detail? Possibly, but I can do no better without going back to Buffalo and then to Los Angeles.
      5. Looking at WP:SS, especially Wikipedia:Summary_style#Size (which generally considers whether and article is "readable and easy to navigate") and looking at WP:SIZE (which describes a limit of 6,000 to 10,000 words), I do not feel the article significantly exceeds current standards. The readability tool currently show Jack Kemp at 10383 words. This is not "much longer", to quote WP:SIZE, than the recommended limit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I have called the Occidental College Library and they can not help me unless I am either a student, faculty member or alumni or I am able to physically come to the library in California.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern is that today he's more commonly known for his political career rather than his football career. It's my theory (just guessing, now) that folks searching for him would be looking for information about his political career first. I've got no problems with page length, but from a readability standpoint, it's almost as if you have two different people: Jack Kemp the football player, and Jack Kemp the politician. My main concern is that you've developed the article to the point where someone looking for information about one particular period in his life may have a harder time looking for it due to the information about the other periods in his life. It's just my opinion, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments.

  • Youth: "sports consumed Jack Kemp in his youth..." Jack isn't need ed here.
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kemp, attended Fairfax High School," lose the first comma.
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • College: I think it needs to be explained who Jim Mora is. Have it say something like "a future National Football League head coach".
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice before that Kemp was a record-setting javelin hurler. I'd like to know a little more about that, if reliable sources are avaliable.
    Like I said above, I would have to physically go to the Occidental College library to get details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kemp was near-sighted and tenacious on the field." I don't see how the two go together. Try this: "Although he was near-sighted, Kemp was tenacious on the field."
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kemp was also self-motivated: Should this be a semi-colon?
    Basically there are three ways to join independent phrases. One with a comma, one with a semi-colon and one with a colon. I only really remember the first one, so I may be wrong, but it looks alright to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough explanation for me. Giants2008 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like the next part either and think this is better: "he performed post-graduate study at Long Beach State University and California Western University, and served in the military from 1958–1962."
    Your change is still an ungrammatical, but look at what I have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congress: "Bill Bradley, a former star athlete." How about stating his sport, like this: "a former basketball star."
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • congress should be capitalized in next sentence.
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add citation(s) for the other football players in Congress.
    done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work. Giants2008 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Round four: Let's get into his political career, since I haven't taken an in-depth look at that yet.
*Congress: The last sentence of the section seems like a borderline run-on. I would start a new sentence for when Kemp went to the '94 World Cup.
*Presidential bid: I'm not getting the part about his liberterian philosophies clashing with social and religious values. I think you mean voters with those beliefs, but I may just be reading it wrong.
*Something looks wrong with the Super Tuesday sentence, but I can't put my finger on it.
  • It is related to having two ands in the sentence. It is as confusing to explain the ungrammitical nature specifically as it is to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Cabinet: "did not get executed under the Clinton administration however." Comma before however
*Post-HUD years "and the primary source of this income was for public speaking." Doesn't read well. Either remove for or re-phrase it.
"Kemp personally earned $6.9 million in the first three years, primarily for public speaking." I like the flow, but should "first" be "next"? Or is it connected to the previous text? Giants2008 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Add a comma before "and just after Dole gained the endorsements" helps break up the sentence a bit.
*In next paragraph, put a comma before the immigrant quote. Also, what index is referred to?
  • Comma added. If you are asking about the index because you want to know, just see the citation for the sentence. If you are asking because you think it should be in the article say so, but I excluded it because on my first reading I don't think further detail on this matter would be an addition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice Presidential nomination: Something needs to be added in the first line. It appears that a couple words are missing.
  • You may not have seen the problem. The second sentence starts, "When Dole declined an invitation to speak National Association for the Advancement of Colored People". It's missing a couple of connecting words. Giants2008 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Two Bob Doles in second paragraph. If his first name needs to be repeated at all, do it at first mention.
*What is Empire America? Is it supposed to be the same as Empower America. Or did I miss something.
*"He had been a director for Cyrix Corporation, American Bankers Insurance Group. Is this a typo, or are the two related?
  • In the same paragraph you have three alsos in four sentences. Perhaps remove one of them.
*"he was vocal in his opposition to Clinton's International Monetary Fund lax policies toward South Korea." I think Fund is supposed to be plural.
*Why is Opposed capitalized? Against seems redundant as well.
*Congress should be capitalized.
  • "Lott's apology saying" comma?
*"solutions to poverty in America". For?
*Kemps needs a punctuation fix.
  • The last sentence of this paragraph badly needs cleanup.

bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "describes the club as resort" should be "a resort". Giants2008 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*"on economic plan" Would "the economy" work better?
*Comma after Brazile.
I've struck my oppose, and am on the verge of supporting. Let me know when you finish this sizable list. Giants2008 (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Well-cited, complete, and interesting. It adequately covers the subject, and though I have concerns about the article length, they're not enough to override my willingness to support the article. It's better than 95% of the articles on Wikipedia (including many FAs I've seen), and I don't see any gripping reason not to support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't make sense to me "Although his mother attempted to influence him with the culture of piano lessons trips to the Hollywood Bowl,"
  • I'm confused by this sentence:"In addition to developing his respect for hard work, Kemp's habit of rigorous reading, which would become important later, showed in high school where he read history and philosophy books"
    • Did the job or school "develop his respect for hard work"?
    • did he read history and philosophy books for fun or for school?
      • Calls for speculation according to this ref. Other refs may have said. I don't recall. I should have cited this sentence with three or four refs so it sould be easy to check. I would literally have to reread all the refs to take a stab at further clarification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the fact that he was a member of the fraternity have to do with his involvement in student gov't? The phrasing of that sentence makes it seems as if there was a connection
  • Might want to specify that Division III is an NCAA term/organization
  • The first paragraph on him at college doesn't flow well. I would move the information about the school being a founding member of Div III and the info about him going to the school to learn about pro formations together and put that at the beginning of the paragraph. (something along the lines of He went to Occidental, a founding member of Div 3, because...) After it has discussed why he went there, then it could discuss his footall carer at the school
  • What does self-motivation have to do with going into the military or to graduate school? That adjective doesn't seem to fit.
  • awkward phrasing "Kemp married Joanne Main, his college sweetheart,[5] after she graduated from Occidental College in 1958, which was a year after Kemp graduated"
  • the "but" in this sentence implies that Beebe was not a Presbyterian. Do we know that for sure? "Kemp's Biblical Literature professor, Keith Beebe, presided over the wedding,[11] but after the marriage, Kemp became a Presbyterian.["
  • why mention Joanne's name again name again? people likely didn't forget it in the few sentences between now and when she was introduced "Kemp and his wife, Joanne, have two sons"
  • Please use ndashes for date ranges in the section headings
  • this is a little repetitive. Please reword " one of the first 3,000-yard passers in the American Football League by surpassing 3000 yards in the inaugural 14-game schedule 1960 season"
    • done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1962, the Chargers drafted Lance Alworth and John Hadl in the 1962 American Football League Draft" - is this important?
      • Alworth may not be so important, but Hadl partially explains why the Chargers put Kemp on waivers and changed the course of history. However, Alworth is the type of player that serves the purpose of landmarking time. People reading wondering if Kemp was part of the Alworth era will have their answer, much like mentioning O.J. serves the same purpose at the other end of Kemp's career.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the exact dates of the RNCs important? It feels repetitive to say "July 15, 1980 at the 1980..." when it could just say "at the 1980 and 1984 RNCs"
      • I would have a hard time saying dates are unimportant, but since we have the year in the convention I shortened both dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph needs a little reordering "Kemp was in the United States Army Reserves when his unit, the San Diego-based 977th Transportation Company, was activated for duty on October 15, 1961 " - this starts out talking about October 1961, then August, then September.
  • "reading a broad range of books including the likes of Henry David Thoreau," - this makes it sound as if Thoreau is a book instead of an author
  • should probably move the info about Bills getting Daryle Lamonica into the next paragraph, which talks about the battle between them for the position
  • there are a couple of instances where Kemp is referred to as "Mr. Kemp". Please fix to just "Kemp"
  • "interviewed at Kemp's Congressional office." - was Wanniski interviewing for a job or interviewing Kemp?
    • The secondary source (NYTimes) is ambiguous: Jude Wanniski, then an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal and a devoted supply-sider, dropped by Mr. Kemp's Congressional office for an interview.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The article appears very well-sourced and comprehensive. However, the prose needs work to reduce redundancy and to weed out irrelevant information. There is also a serious issue with people's opinions being presented and not being properly attributed. This leads the article to have a slight pro-Kemp POV. I've highlighted a few instances of this, but the entire article should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to get all of them.
  • I'm not entirely sure why so much space is given to describing Fairfax high School. I'd cut it down to "Kemp attended Fairfax High School,[1] which is known both for its historically high concentration of Jewish students and for producing celebrities. Over 95 percent of Kemp's classmates were Jewish and he became a supporter of Jewish causes." and then move onto "Kemp learned to embrace diversity and hard work during his experience working with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles". Unless you know of any celebrities who were Kemp's classmates, that list does not belong in this article, and neither does information about what Fairfax looked like 50 years after Kemp was there.
    • Changed celebrity list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still too many random facts included. Why does this matter "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides"? Why does the location of the school matter in this article? I would also remove this sentence "Other alumni born in the 1930s include Chuck Essegian, David Janssen, Jerry Leiber, Norm Sherry, Phil Spector and Arnold Steinhardt.", because we have no idea whether they were actually in school with Kemp or not (someone born in 1930 would have graduated when Kemp arrived; Kemp would have graduated before someone born in the later years got there). Keep the article focused on facts directly relevant to Kemp. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the 1930s list. I am trying to give the paragraph a flavor that he went to a very famous high school, with rich kids and future celebrities. If you have ever been to Hollywood, you may be familiar with the part of its tourism industry that ferries tourists around to celebrity sites. His high school was on the list of destinations. Saying he went to Fairfax gives the reader no information other than the name of the school. There was much more than name to inform the reader about. The purpose of mentioning a high school for a person sho is who is most notable for things that happened in his fifties and sixties is to explain his background at the FA level. For a start or B-class article just knowing the name is good. For an FA, many high schools contributed significantly to the subjects background. That is the case here. Melrose Avenue/Place is a famous street. This contributes to the flavor of the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Kemps switched their official residence " - does this mean they moved or they had 2 homes and just choose to spend more time in the other one?
    • It is standard for a congressman to have a home in his district and in the Washington DC area. I don't have any good sources for this fact though. I am also unsure whether the Kemps continue to own their New York State residence. Do you want the text to change in any way?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "After his experience with the NFL, Kemp served as a private in the..." needs help with the prose. This just doesn't flow well.
  • There is a lot of unnecessary detail in the article. For example:
    • Does it matter where Joanne attended high school or grew up?
      • since she is not notable, his is the place to describe his family. It is probably no less relevant than the fact that his sons played pro football. I don't think removing the information improves the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What value does adding the information give? I don't think anyone would care where she grew up or went to school. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, the article dedicates all of two sentences to Kemp's wife. This is hardly overemphasis. There are many possible levels of details in the article. We could say Kemp has been married for fifty years to someone. We could say who by adding her first name. We could also add her maiden name. We could give their relationship an explanation. In this case we just note that the were college sweethearts. We could give some background on the woman. If she was from a notable family we could mention her notable family members and business ventures. For example, it is not uncommon to say something like Kemp married so and so, who is the daughter of big daddy x and mother y. Big daddy x was the son of super big daddy z who founded mamoth company xx. By omission, here it is implied that she is not of a notable family. How much should we say. Secondary sources have told us where she is from and nothing more. We report what secondary sources say. I think that is a good guideline in this case for what to include. If Kemp had had four wives each sharing the role of non-notable significant other, then jsut mentioning names might be O.K. In this case, I actually wish I could say something like Joanne grew up as a cheerleader in Fillmore and was a cheerleader at Occidentally when she met Jack. We have no such detail. I think the sentence describing where she is from is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does it matter, in this article, why the Chargers moved to San Diego? Couldn't that just be shortened to "In 1961, the Chargers moved to San Diego. That year, Kemp led them to a 12-2 record..."
      • The detail is color for the article that gives us some background since Kemp would later work for the San Diego Union. I abbreviated the reference however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The two instances are so far apart that I didn't pick up on it. I still think it doesn't add anything, and in an article this long anything that can be left out probably should. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this important? "Kemp's 1961 Chargers roommate and Pro Football Hall of Famer, Ron Mix was denied a deferment" Was Mix injured? If not, no real comparison.
    • Why is so much information included about the Yellowstone Mountain Club?
  • The article needs to be reread to try to tighten the prose. For example, phrases like "An interesting event occurred " don't add anything useful to a sentence.
  • Do bulldozers and snowballs really need to be wikilinked?
    • This is an international encyclopedia and I would imagine many international readers may be less than familiar with the terms and we have aritcles for them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bulldozers and snowballs aren't only in North America. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In an article that at last count had 1338 wikilinks, it is very likely that 1 or 2% of these are of debatable necessity. I personally don't know that much about bulldozers and have not even read their article on WP. I do however feel that the reader should be able to find out a little bit about them since we mention them. I kind of feel the same way about snowballs, except that I think many readers know as much as they might want to about them by personal experience. I will unlink the latter, but find it hard to beleieve that most readers know a lot about bulldozers even though they may know what the term means. In the context of this article, I believe it is likely that a WP:GA or better article on bulldozers might mention that on occasion they are used outside of construction for snow removal. It might describe particular models specially designed for snow removal rather than as a construction tool. O.K. wait a second, I am going to take my first look at the bulldozer page. this section should mention snow removal modifications. I'd be interestted in knowing what is different about a bulldozer used for snow removal than for earthmoving.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need to include the weights in stones. Kg should be enough.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use cquotes; use blockquote instead. However, it also says don't offset quotations of 4 lines or less.
  • This is an example of multiple problems I've seen throughout the article:

    • "Kemp is described as the most proactive combatant in the war on poverty since Robert Kennedy,[76] but Kemp's view on a war on poverty was quite different than earlier combatants such as Lyndon Johnson, for example, since Kemp believed in incentive-based systems instead of more traditional government social programs"

      • Outright repetition "war on poverty" phrase used twice in the same sentence
      • Overly long and clunky sentence
      • "Kemp is described " - by whom?
        • What is proper protocol when you put the quote right after the statement. Is it still a violation of WP:AWW if the citation immediately follows the statement?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know if it technically violates or not, but I do think it needs to be made more clear. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unnecessary wordiness: "such as Lyndon Johnson, for example," -> such as and for example serve the same purpose in the sentence
    • I am not familiar with this scandal and not sure what the sentence is trying to say "The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity that Kemp has been cleared of." (and please don't end a sentence with a preposition)
    • This sentence seems a little POV-ish. A rewrite into more encyclopedic terms or a better disclosure of who said this might help "is as fondly remembered for his good hair and handsome looks as for his athletic prowess and political savvy"
    • statements like this are a little grandiose "Thereafter, Kemp began espousing supply side economics far and wide" - perhaps a bit more clarification?
    • Unnecessary wikilinking - prisons, medical treatment, credit car...
    • " 1988, if Kemp had succeeded when he surrendered his congressional seat to run for President of the United States,[3] it would have made him the first person to move from the United States House of Representatives to the White House since James Garfield" - However, he didn't win, and I'm sure he's not the only Representative to try, so why is this important?
    • "although he was a successful man of ideas" sounds a bit POV.
    • "The political pundits recognized him, however, as a visionary idea man." - I doubt this was all political pundits. This should mention specific political pundits
    • The two clauses in this sentence don't have an obvious connection to me "Although Kemp was unable to procure money for his visions, he was among the administration's leading users of first-class corporate jets.[1"
    • "Bush's vision on racial issues was compared to a man riding backward in a railroad car, never seeing anything until it had rushed past him" - Ouch! This should definitely be attributed to a specific person.
    • what about the LA reiots made Kemp "a focal point of the administration"? This needs to be expanded a bit.
    • "of Kemp's most storied fundraisers occurred during the Super Bowl XXVIII festivities." - what about it was storied? (sorry, I don't get it)
    • "Kemp was considered the star of the 1992 Republican National Convention." - by whom?
    • there should not be external links in the body of the article, and there is not reason to list the NYSE codes anyway for the companies he's served on (those should be in the company articles)
    • I feel like some of the information in the Post-political life section is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (see Wikipedia:Recentism). For example, why is it important that this article mention
      • that he served as an intermediary with Dole and Gingrich?
      • that he gave money to Libby?
      • his involvement in Defense of Democracies? (doesn't even say how he was involved)
    • This sentence does not belon in the books section: "Kemp, who at the time of writing An American Renaissance was a newly converted supply-side economics convert, says the message is best summarized as saying that "A rising tide lifts all boats"

    Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—The writing is not of the required professional standard. Please don't fix just these random examples; another person is necessary to sift through the whole article.

    • My AmEng dictionary says "well known" must be hyphenated. I think this has come up before in your nominations.
    • "set most AFL career passing statistical records"—I don't understand it; a hyphen somewhere might help, but "passing"?
    • Why not start a stub to avoid the redlink right at the start? You, after all, are suggesting by it that an article should be started ...
      • My sources for the stub are so limited that the stub would be rhetorical. Then once it is bluelinked it want call for attention like a redlink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyphen again: "supply-side policies", please. Pipe it to include the hyphen. See similar hyphen further on in the lead.
    • "his more centrist stances advocating immigration reform"—I'm not convinced that such advocacy necessarily identifies centrism. POV.
    • "Kemp has had official roles to promote American football and advocate for retired professional football players. In addition, he has authored, co-authored, and edited several books." He has "had" roles to? Sounds as though he had roles in order to ...—is that the meaning? Clumsy sentence in all. Remove "In addition".

    Eeny-meeny-miny-mo:

    • "The Berlin Wall was erected in August 1961...."—A para opening with this would be expected to have something obvious to do with the topic. But the reader has to work hard to piece together what on earth its relevance is. Very poor cohesion, stuck in a section on football.
    • More cohesion issues: "This ploy did not get by Buffalo Bill coach Lou Saban, and the Bills picked up Kemp for the $100 waiver fee on 25 September,[34] one of the biggest bargains in pro football history." This starts a section, but refers back to the previous section. Bad idea. "get by" is rather informal. So is "picked up for"—ungrammatical, probably. This part, and the end of the previous section, are all a bit beyond the non-expert. Context should be established more transparently. Same issue about assumed expertise in "a blowout pre-season loss"—I have no idea what "blowout" means. Engage me as a non-expert, and I might be interested; you could teach me something.
      • I think I got the sloppy language. Blowout is on a dab page. I assume the reader will know the relevant one is the sports related term until it gets its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The requirement for professional standards of formatting, and MOS's guideline about overlinking: "bulldozer": run past me why that needs to be linked?
      • Repeating the argument from above with another reviewer: In an article that at last count had 1339 wikilinks, it is very likely that 1 or 2% of these are of debatable necessity. I personally don't know that much about bulldozers and have not even read their article on WP. I do however feel that the reader should be able to find out a little bit about them since we mention them. I doubt that most readers know a lot about bulldozers even though they may know what the term means. In the context of this article, I believe it is likely that a WP:GA or better article on bulldozers might mention that on occasion they are used outside of construction for snow removal. It might describe particular models specially designed for snow removal rather than as a construction tool. this section should mention snow removal modifications. I'd be interestted in knowing what is different about a bulldozer used for snow removal than for earthmoving.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't provide imperial units and then both metric and imperial units (st?) within the parentheses.

    And lots more. Some patches are OK, but all needs to be good. Tony (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now sorry. I have spent the past hour reading the article, [1], so I should comment. The article is close to FA standard but not quite there. For an article of this length, the prose has to be excellent and engaging. Some sections are: Congress (1971-1989), but the standard falls again. There are ambiguous sentences beginning with some and a lot of redundancy. I feel that the article could be reduced by at least 10%, without losing any facts. The punctuation is a problem: more commas please. Lastly, are there better expressions for heavily jewish, culture him, historically high, (sounds like it no longer is), and rigorous reader. I'm sorry to oppose the promotion of such a fine article. Please get a fresh pair of eyes to go through it. GrahamColmTalk 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Closing notes: With the accumulation of five substantial opposes, the initial supporting comments of "With a penetrating focus on the various phases of Kemp's life and career, an eminently readable style ..." and "Terrific writing ..." become difficult to rationalize. I suggest following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to open and invite previous opposers and peer review volunteers to help prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_Kemp/archive2&oldid=1197949268"