Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1

GA Reassessment
Result: Delist - no improvement to article, no argument against delisting Michael Johnson (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fails Good Article criteria 3.a in that it fails to address the main aspects of the topic. I have raised this on the talk page without result. The section on Clinton’s terms as Governor of Arkansas is woefully inadequate. Clinton spent 12 years as Governor (I think – it is hard to follow from the article) and while the first term, and his subsequent loss is reasonably well covered, the following terms are only brushed over. His first re-election is hidden in a passage which discusses his employment by a law firm; subsequent elections are not mentioned at all. We have a very broad brush review of achievements, surely ten years as Governor deserves a greater analysis? I’m particularly interested to find out more about his re-election in 1982 (was it 1982 – the article doesn’t say). How did a man who was apparently unpopular with both his own party and the electorate at large recover so quickly to make such a spectacular return? As a comparison his 10 years as Governor of Arkansas gets 10 lines in the article, while his “sexual misconduct allegations”, essentially voyeuristic and tabloid in nature, gets 18 lines. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether we like it or not, the sexual misconduct business had more impact on him and the world than his 10 year stint as Governor of Arkansas. The details of his governership are going to end up pushed into a sub-article at some point.  I have created Arkansas gubernatorial election, 1983 as a blank slate to start to collate the details you seek. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Missing the point. Not saying his sexual activities should not be mentioned given the publicity they received at the time. However they are just footnotes to history, and really should be written in a way that shows the effect or otherwise they had on his political career. His terms as Governor were significant in their own right and in terms of Clinton's rise as a national figure and eventual ascension to the Presidency. Even if they did end up with daughter articles, they would still need substantial summaries in this article. But not even that exists yet. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't refs need to be standardized for a GA? I see a lot of lazy refs here.--Loodog (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. Happyme22 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Capture of Osama bin Laden section's main claims cite a single editorial and seem awfully biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.230.194 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing soon
I'm intending to close this discussion within 48 hours, and currently I intend to delist the article. The reason is as I have discussed above, the article fails to cover the subject adequately. If I can explain further, look at why Clinton is notable. Obviously the President of the United States is a notable subject. But what if Clinton had fallen under the proverbial bus in 1992, would he still be notable? The answer, as a Governor of Arkansas is of course yes. So let's imagine he did die in 1992, and we delete any reference to events after that date. Is the article still a Good Article? The answer is a resounding no. The inadequacies cannot be justified by a lack of information. Clinton's career as Governor would have been well covered by the media at the time, and subsequently would have formed a substantial part of any decent biography of Clinton. So if anybody wants to have a go at rectifying the situation, you have this weekend. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)