Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. President,
 * As promised, in honor of your 65th Birthday, I will accept the responsibility and honor of being your reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review tony.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Iankap99,
 * I almost always fail GACs when I get to 5 or 6 uncited paragraphs. Each paragraph of a well-structured article is suppose to present a new topic. If any paragraph has no citations a topic is without citation. You may want to skip ahead of me and make sure I don't get to a high total of uncited paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD
 * Why does WP have the 19th as his birthday, but the Clinton Center show the 13th? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird. That has to be a typo at the Clinton Center. Google "Clinton August 19" and you get source after source giving that as his birthday. Google "Clinton August 13" and you get all unrelated stuff about events in Clinton, Illinios or whatever. – Quadell (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I rarely review such highly trafficked ground. From my experience, this is a well-crafted LEAD. I have some very minor issues with what I see, but reserve judgement on it until I have reviewed the whole article and can determine whether it is a proper summary of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the link to left-wing politics be used for the term left-of-center.
 * Good idea--Iankap99 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the phrase "from Yale Law School." should be followed by where they met. However, the text in the body does not support this addendum, making me wonder if it is sufficiently broad. It is my understanding that this is where they met.
 * I added it, it fits well and it is indeed where they met. This is documented in the Law School Part.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is began dating = meeting? I ask because I recall seeing some special where he describes the first time he saw her and talks about later dating her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be sufficient given its relative import, but I just thought I recalled more of a story being out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead is only 2351 characters of readable prose, while the article is 52587. I think that for any article over 50KB we could use the LEAD more fully. I think we should be shooting for 2800-3000. Again, I reserve the right to suggest more content including the following
 * Chelsea
 * Rhodes Scholar
 * Georgetown alum
 * From Arkansas--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede is now 2776 characters of prose. – Quadell (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * After thinking further about this matter. The following two sentences should be considered separately for modification and inclusion:
 * Clinton is an alumnus of Georgetown University where he was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a Rhodes Scholarship to attend University College, Oxford.
 * Clinton was born and raised in Arkansas where he grew to become both a student leader and a skilled musician. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the lede, including your suggestions and rearranging a little. I sourced the claim that they met at Yale. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember a LEAD is suppose to be structured in 4 paragraphs or less. In this case I think it should be exactly 4 paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are we linking to Governor and Arkansas rather than List of Governors of Arkansas (and maybe Arkansas later)?
 * Similarly why Senator and New York rather than List of United States Senators from New York?
 * Link Congressional Budget Office
 * The LEAD is generally suffering from blue text saturation. You might consider remove citations and making sure that each one is in the text where the point is suppose to be elaborated upon. Not absolutely necessary considering the appearance of Barack Obama and W, however. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Debating in my mind whether linking to World War II would be informative to the reader. Thoughts? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great feedback. I have implemented all these suggestions (except WWII, since it's only mentioned as an era, not as a war). – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Early life and career
 * "Following Bill's birth, to study nursing, his mother Virginia Dell Cassidy (1923–1994), traveled to New Orleans, leaving Bill in Hope with grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy, who owned and operated a small grocery store." is a grammatical bear and needs to be split into two sentences.
 * I would refer to Roger Clinton, Sr., using the Sr.
 * "The other was listening to Martin Luther King's 1963 I Have a Dream speech. He also memorized Dr. King's speech." Completely loses the spirit of the source which had causality. The speech inspired the memorization. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have fixed all these problems. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

*The WP:CAPTION is ungrammatical, suggesting that he ran for election the year he received his degree, which is almost certainly untrue.
 * College and law school years
 * I would merge the two war draft related paragraphs since the second is a bit short.
 * I am a habitual WP:OVERLINKer, but I would link the following terms: draft, aide and notarized.
 * at which is probably better than during which. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. I like "Clinton ran for President of the Student Council while attending the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University." even better. More direct. – Quadell (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to link to George McGovern presidential campaign, 1972 and possibly both United States presidential election, 1972. I would suggest "Clinton took a job with the 1972 McGovern campaign and was assigned to lead McGovern's effort in Texas." --> Clinton took a job with the McGovern campaign for the 1972 United States presidential election and was assigned to lead McGovern's effort in Texas.
 * Also, since this is a political article where such links might be important revise "Clinton worked with Ron Kirk, who was later elected mayor of Dallas twice, future governor of Texas, Ann Richards" as "Clinton worked with future two-term mayor of Dallas, Ron Kirk, future governor of Texas, Ann Richards"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, this section should include a statement about when and where the Clintons met. With a couple like this, the public domain probably has a record of whether they met at a debate club, in the library, at a Harvard-Yale game, a fraternity party or whatnot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hillary_Rodham_Clinton also fails to mention where they met. However it includes a discussion about a summer where Clinton cancelled his plans to live with her. That should be mentioned here if you can properly source it. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great suggestions. I have implemented them all. – Quadell (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Political career 1978–1992
 * The incumbent, John Paul Hammerschmidt, defeated Clinton by a 52% to 48% margin. should be clarified to The Democratic/Republican incumbent, John Paul Hammerschmidt, defeated Clinton by a 52% to 48% margin in the primary/general election. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it was his first election, "Without opposition in the general election, Clinton was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976." should probably be preceded by some primary election information if there was one. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be good if the other gubernatorial elections had articles, but it is not your obligation to make them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "In 1982, he was again elected governor and kept this job for ten years." needs a citation. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * New Democrat link is redundant with above. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both uncited paragraphs needs to be merged or expanded as well as cited. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pine Bluff Commercial sounds like the kind of publication (newspaper or magazine in all likelihood) that should be italicized. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to merge or expand the other small paragraph (slick willie).
 * This section seems deficient on things I would be looking for. I want to see some relationships here. I though he developed relationships with people who he took to Washington.  Weren't there any key Arkansas Cabinet members worthy of a mention here? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to tell me why I should not be looking in this section to see first mentions of Arkansas people he took with him to Washington.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be the place. But as I said below, I couldn't find anyone in his cabinet that he brought from Arkansas. Most were veterans from the Carter administration. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "but it was criticized for length." needs explanation. Was he too brief or too extensive? How long did he speak? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fixed these. But the "slick Willie" sentence seemed trivial, since the nickname is not mentioned elsewhere in the article and it's a phrase in an editorial in a minor paper. So I removed it instead of merging. (Not everything deserves mention in a GA biograhpy.) About the relationships bit, I looked through all 34 members of Clinton's cabinet, and only one (McLarty) lived in Arkansas while the Clintons did. And I can't find any information about them working together or establishing a relationship, besides McLarty deciding not to run against Clinton in his first run as governor. That doesn't seem important enough to mention, to me. – Quadell (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the term is derogatory, it is not really appropriate to remove it from a 55KB article. We should document its origin since we have a source. It is used in popular media such as NY Times, MSNBC, etc. Look at this headline. It is not you or I calling him this. It is a known nickname and not something we are suppose to whitewash from WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Whitewash" is a little harsh. We're talking about Pine Bluff Commercial, a newspaper that doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. (The Online Edition appears to have been designed back in the Clinton administration, and not updated since.) If the nickname is notable, that's fine, but the "first used" factoid still seems trivial to me. – Quadell (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am open to a convincing argument to the contrary about WP:BLP related issues or some such however. I can see that Dubya is not in GWBs article, although we know that W. exists. However, we have a source. If the guy who gave him the nickname was a heckler at a town hall or a neighbor, notability of the source is not relevant here.  We have a source that is reliable, I think. The consideration here is WP:BLP for important people.  If he was a sax player, football player, rapper, or some such, Slick Willie might be in bold in the WP:LEAD. I am very open to BLP arguments.  However, the notability of the source is not relevant, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. consider which nickname is most closely associated with him "Slick Willie", "Boy Governor" or "Comeback Kid" and say which should be removed from the article first based on their enduring nature.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) No no, it's not a BLP concern. I'm just thinking, if it's the nickname itself that's notable (and not which paper said it first), perhaps it should go in the "Public image" section? I'll try inserting something there, and see what you think. – Quadell (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually hoping that you could teach me a BLP reason why not. Otherwise it seems WP:POV to include his positive nicknames and not his negative one. O.K. so why don't politicians have all their nicknames in the first paragraph and why aren't negative ones included at all like normal people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Grin. Someone as discussed as Clinton is going to have a lot of names. We have "Slick Wille" and "MTV President" (negative, sourced, notable) and "Comeback Kid" (positive, sourced, notable). I don't think "Boy Governor" should stay, as I say below. – Quadell (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have a long history of being pro-nickname and in my last substantive debate was in favor of The Bear Jew being included in the WP:LEAD. I would also be in favor of having "Billary" included in the Presidency of Bill Clinton (said without looking to see if it is).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't dealing with Hurricane Irene today. While you are silent, I have dug up enough on "Boy Governor" to support its inclusion as well: NY Times, Washington Post story devoted to nicknames, Boy Clinton book.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy Governor is highly legitimized by the second page of the following google search: Clinton "Boy Governor"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurricane problems, as of yet. I moved the "Slick Willie" moniker information to the "Public image" section, where I think it fits better. As for "Boy Governor", I'll discuss below. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1992 presidential campaign
 * Due to his youthful appearance, he was often called the "Boy Governor". needs a citation.
 * I'd say it needs to be removed. I did a lot of searching, and it looks totally non-notable to me. (Clinton isn't on the first page of Google results for "Boy Governor", and "Boy Governor" isn't anywhere in the search "Bill Clinton nickname".) I can find a few books that call him "the boy governor", but none that claim it to be relevant (unlike "Slick Willie" and "Comeback Kid"). – Quadell (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed. I'm not saying no one ever called him that; I'm saying it's not a notable nickname. Of the sources you mentioned above, one calls him "Boy Governor of Arkansas" once in a throwaway line in a long book, without mentioning if anyone besides the author called him that or why it was important. (I'd say "Boy Governor of Arkansas" is different than "Boy Governor".) Once source calls him "local boy and boy Governor", without a capital B, which doesn't seem like a nickname. And the other mentions it only to say that the name didn't stick. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you check the google search: Clinton "Boy Governor"? It is mentioned in a lot of books. Saying it didn't stick is a little strong.  Once he grew into the role of President it was an anachronism.  It would be like saying Little Stevie didn't stick to Stevie Wonder or something. It is more like he outgrew it. No one calls him that anymore.  He may forever be Slick Willie as long as he is a smooth talker, but it is no more of a valid nickname.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't say it didn't stick, the source says that, grouping it with other non-notable nicknames such as "Kid Clinton" and "Young Smoothie". I can find reliable sources that say the nickname "Little Stevie" was significant for Stevie Wonder. I can find RSes that say "Slick Willie" was significant in Clinton's life. I can't find any that say "Boy Governor" was ever significant. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Boy Governor" g-tests quite well. It endured well into his tenure as a national politician. Compare google search results of Clinton "Young Smoothie" (non existant), Clinton "Kid Clinton" (spurious) and Clinton "Boy Governor". The latter has many significant results. Time Magazine, MSNBC, NY Times, ESPN, books, and a host of other sources,, , one source explaining the use of the term.  I would mention it as a referent rather than a nickname since it is so often in lower case. It is used as if it is a common term that wikipedia should have an article about and everyone should know.  However, it is only use in association with him. I consider it our duty to clarify to the reader the meaning and use of the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you make some good points. Mine isn't the only opinion here that counts, after all. :) In the "Governor of Arkansas" section, I added "Due to his youthful appearance, Clinton was often called the "Boy Governor", a name that stuck through his presidential campaign." with a citation. – Quadell (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope we are serving the readers well. Admittedly, in terms of derisiveness, it falls somewhere between Boy Toy and Boy Wonder, but it is enduring and a part of the domain of information that the reader could want to search for in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that we ARE including it, let's talk about its use. What I think might be more appropriate than "a name that stuck through his presidential campaign" might be something "a referrent that continues to be used to refer to him during his gubernatorial era on occasion".  Then I might use three of the many refs (the one there now and two others) I have pointed out above. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it's not really a name. And it was used after the campaign. I've changed the prose and added refs. – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Each Super Bowl has an article. Was this Super Bowl XXVI? Link whichever one it was.
 * Done.
 * Why did you pipe it. Let the reader know which one it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Done. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "On election night, Clinton labeled himself "The Comeback Kid", earning a firm second-place finish." should probably be "On election night, Clinton labeled himself "The Comeback Kid" for earning a firm second-place finish."
 * Done, and I changed "Clinton labeled himself" to "News outlets labeled him" (since that's what the sources say).
 * Throw Super Tuesday in there wherever it fits. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * The two paragraphs that detail the meat of the campaign are both stubby and in need of merger or expansion. Since the article is only 52.6KB we have 7.4KB to play with and this is a good section to use expansion capacity.  Currently, it is a bit hard to understand the flow of events, but further detail could clear that up. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's going to take a little research. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After checking out the online sources listed, and a few of my own, I'm confident that the section now adequately covers the 92 campaign. I've added a little material, rearranged a bit, and tightened the sourcing. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote) on a platform focusing on domestic issues; a significant part of Clinton's success was Bush's steep decline in public approval." should be moved to the beginning of the next paragraph. That is better sequencing and fills out a stubby paragraph. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, done.
 * "It was the first time this had occurred since the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s." needs a citation and could use a congress number like 95th United States Congress or whichever one it is. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is. Done and sourced.
 * Move the last paragraph for proper sequencing. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Presidency, 1993–2001
 * I think probably we may have gotten overzealous with our reorg. It seems that most modern president's have very distinct Domestic policy sections. Much of the present chronology should be under Domestic policy, but I am not enough of a political expert to say what does and doesn't belong. Which ever is the majority(domestic or non-domestic) of the chronology should stay in place and an other issues section should be created.  Maybe everything in the chronology should be domestic policy, but I am not sure.  In truth, I am not sure what is left after domestic and foreign policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Eventually we are going to have to move the quote boxes and images around for effect. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm just about all Clintoned out, after spending around 25 hours on what I naively thought would be a relatively simple improvement. I'm willing to finish up cleaning up the references and performing minor cleanups here and there, but I just don't have it in me for yet another reorg. If it doesn't make GA, I'll totally understand... this article required a lot more work than it appeared at first glance, and I probably would have failed it outright if I had been the reviewer. (I appreciate your patience and work staying with it through all this.) Anyway, I'll do my best shot with this current go, but what I don't get done today I'm just going to have to leave for others. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * Obama, Dubya and Reagan all have sub artilces for Domestic policy and sections in the bio relating to it. H.W. does not. However, his bio still has a section for this topic with a more general redirect.  At some point in the future this article will likely have a specialized article for domestic policy.  At that time a reorg here will be mandatory.  It would be nice now, but I understand. The article still complies with MOS in strict chrono order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are still going to have to make the article look good. I always do my image review at the end in part because often when things get moved around, images get squeezed out or added. There will be a reorg of images and an image review. WRT images, We are going to want a bit more alternating of images and an occaissional Template:Multiple image to help do so.  See articles like Missouri River and Vince Van Gogh.  We are also going to want to reformat quote boxes and move them so that they are not opposite images.  See Clint Eastwood.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made a first attempt at it. I'm sure it's better, but I'm not sure if it's right yet. What do you think? – Quadell (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will have to do an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First term, 1993–1997
 * It isn't clear that there is a thematic reason for this section not to be chronological.
 * Exactly. The whole presidential section is organizationally messy and confusing, with some parts chronological and others sectioned into themes, without reference to chronological order. After thinking it over a great deal, and juggling sections around a lot, I think it's best to have a "Presidency" section with four subsections: "1st term", "2nd term", "Military and Foreign events", and "Judicial appointments". And no further subsections. Each section is chronological in itself. I think having subsections within each term is inherently problematic, since it ruins the chronological organization. (There's the budget, then the travel office controversy, then healthcare reform, etc. Either each paragraph has to have a section, which is stubby, or none of them should.) The reason I think the "Military and Foreign events" and "Judicial appointment" sections are exceptions and should be separate, is that they integrate elements from both terms, are largely independent of the material in the "term" sections, and it have "main article" hatnotes that cover both terms. Read through the new organization and tell me what you think. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would not have known what to suggest. Thank you for taking the initiative to do something sensible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually make "Military and Foreign events" a subsection of "2nd term"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! That was an accident. Now fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * presumably the intro before this subsection is cited within the detailed succeeding text.
 * It is now, and expanded with info that had previously only been stated in the lede. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Link budget deficit
 * Done.– Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The February 17, 1993 paragraph needs to be wikified with links to terms such as: joint session of Congress, middle class, Robert Rubin, Goldman Sachs, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
 * Reformulated, reordered, and wikified. (Took out one particular advisor, since the sources didn't support him having more influence in this than others.) – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to whitehouse.gov and call it by name.
 * Done– Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of linking the abbreviation IIRIRA, link the full text. Why does this come before the 93 travel office controversy?
 * Linked, and order changed. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I moved the parenthesis outside of the link (and fixed a typo).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be a main tag for White House FBI files controversy.
 * Done. Now that I have de-sectioned, I've linked in the paragraph text instead. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does all the death penalty content belong in this section? It seems to belong in earlier sections. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: some is in the Governor of Arkansas section, and some in the 1992 presidential campaign section. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the Senators Ted Kennedy – a Democrat paragraph in the first term?
 * Moved. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does Whitehouse.gov come before a lot of the 1993 stuff? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Order changed. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not clear why some topics are subsectioned and some are not. I think the section should be redone either chronologically or thematically. Most of the content in the section is just thrown in (not in order and not by theme), with a few things subsectioned. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. See my comment above. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think each paragraph in the first and second term should be written to demonstrate to the reader that it is chronological. Thus, in many paragraphs the month needs to be added.  E.G., you might want to say "national health care system ultimately died [with such and such legislative act that occured on MMM DD, YYYY]. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to rewrite the paragraphs to include more prominent date information. In some case, I could not find the actual date, and used the month and year. – Quadell (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't necessarily mean to add so many DDs, but adding all those months will help the reader. We now need to smooth out the text so that not so many paragraphs begin On Month day, Year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I'd misunderstood the request. I've now reworded so that there is more sentence variety. Some paragraphs now start with the date, but most simply incorporate it in a more natural position. – Quadell (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Second term, 1997–2001
 * Double check that 92 description as populist and 96 description as reform are correct for Perot.
 * Yes. He was independent in 1992 (though "populist" is a good characterization) and "Reform" in 1996. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would extend "but retained control of both" with "houses of the XXth United States Congress".
 * Done
 * Link Arkansas Supreme Court, No-fly zone
 * Done.
 * I think the first term should have its own Military and foreign events subsection even if it is only the first two paragraphs of this section.
 * See my comment above. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to 1998 State of the Union Address rather than State of the Union Address.
 * Good catch. Done.
 * Have you previously linked biological and chemical weapon? Link now if not.
 * Done.
 * Spell out Permanent normal trade relations on first use. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Whitewater controversy section should merge or expand stubby paragraphs.
 * Merged.
 * The small paragraphs in the Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden section should be merged or expanded.
 * Merged.
 * Judicial appointments leaves me wondering about his success rate. Can you provide statistics on what percent of his nominations were approved.
 * 84%. Added. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what about other non-judicial nominations throughout government. Are any statistics kept?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't find any reliable statistics on this. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had this article in the back of my mind from working on the Richard Cordray article. Now that I look back at it, I see id does not even mention Obama's non-judicial percentage. Maybe this is an uncommon stat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Public opinion
 * The graph belies the text. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Public image
 * Can you break up that long Toni Morrison sentence.
 * Why is the Jones case described in four paragraphs all of which are stubby?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "a denial that became the basis for the impeachment charge of perjury." needs a citation. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I rearranged this greatly, removing trivia and sectioning allegations of sexual misconduct into its own article, summarizing in this article. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Post-presidential career
 * You imply a connection between his wife entering office and him giving speeches. You do not mention her campaign costs as a reason, which I think you mean to imply.
 * Please incorporate the following type of stories: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/24/clinton-turns-husbands-charity-retire-campaign-debt/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004883-503544.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32320.html --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those links all have to do with Bill Clinton raising money to pay off debt after her unsuccessful Presidential bid in 2008. Would you like me to add this to the "2008 presidential election" section? – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is your discretion to use them in that section or the next. I trust your judgement. You should also work in http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/bill-clinton-2007-speech-haul-tops-10-million/ --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find, that's certainly the best source yet. I incorporated it and a previous source, along with the information therein, into the "2008 presidential election" section. (The second sentence and last sentence of that section are both new.) – Quadell (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the reference chosen supports the final sentence. Add the other two sources that I suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, I'd misread which Clinton was referred to in that article. I put the better sources in. – Quadell (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal comment needs a reference.
 * Say My Life was a best seller too.
 * Give month and year for both 2005 events and if possible the months for the creation of the funds.
 * Give year for Yeltsin speech. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I found no sources claiming financial motivation, so I rewrote the initial sentence to adhere better to the source. I fixed all other concerns here. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Honors and accolades
 * It seems to me that most president's should have separate main list articles for things named after them. You might want to start one.
 * There should be a category for such articles whether or not it is specific to presidents or not.
 * Where any things named after him for his service as governor rather than as President?
 * Actually, you probably don't get things named after you right away as a governor and by the time things are named after him he was already Prez.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not mention any civic structures other than schools. What about office buildings, hospitals, annual events, etc. Do any such things exist yet? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though each president gets one, Clinton Presidential Center is an honor of sorts as a structured dedicated to and named after him. Why isn't it in this section and the dedicated article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I added the library to both. Although there are many "Clinton" hospitals and colleges, I can't find any that were named after the president. – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a formality cite his Man of the Year awards. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the grammy's are such a highly publicized award, that they deserve mention here. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Grammy info is in there. – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. when you create a separate article you actually enumerate schools, statues and streets.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done that. – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing the honorary degrees in the refs is odd. Put that content in the article with an enumaration of Schools, years and type of honorary degree, if known. (none of that is required in this GAC, but since you have my attention, I will give you advice).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. – Quadell (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I sectioned this into its own article with its own categorization, and merely summarized here. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The refs are still a big problem as noted below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my next step. – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The nested honorary degree refs look odd. You should format them properly in the list and honors article with full enumeration in a list format. Here properly cite three prominent ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should just say several here with three citations. The reader can to the full list.  There is no clear rationale why you named some and not others. Over time alums from other schools he gets honorary degrees from will want to add their school here.  Just say several with three citations. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I tried a way that does that, while still adding both types of degrees. Does this look good to you? – Quadell (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also in terms of distributing content from here to the list article, make sure that has more detail. Schools and statues should be listed there individually.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Further thought: I would have a section for honorary degrees with bulletpoints, a section for buildings and structures (schools, his library and statues) with bullet points, and a section with honors with bulletpoints.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that is forked in the other article, it does not really fall under this review any more. However, I hope you consider my advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, why isn't the pictured award included? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added info for the pictured award. I'll also do more in the List of honors and awards earned by Bill Clinton later on. But I think all issues about this section of this article are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is being Special UN envoy an honorific? Is it like being a US Ambassador? does it deserve a succession box or to be included in honors and awards?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Diplomatic rank, it's just an ad hoc thing without succession. – Quadell (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K. so it does not belong in succession boxes. Is it an honor?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one. I've been thinking about it a bit. It's certainly an honor to be appointed "Special Envoy", but it's also an honor to be elected governor and president. Those two shouldn't be mentioned in the "Honors and accolades" section. It seems to me that the difference is, governor and president are jobs. They're responsibilities that happen to be honored as well. Whereas there's no responsibility that comes with getting an honorary degree or having a school named after you; it's purely an honor. If that's the important difference, then "Special Envoy" is certainly a job with responsibilities, and belongs in the "Post-presidential career" section (where it is) and not the "Honors and accolades" section. – Quadell (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just had a look at List of nicknames of United States presidents. It seems that we forgot "Bubba" (which I recall) and "Teflon Bill" (which I oddly never have heard of before).  It seems that they are missing "MTV President" and "Boy Governor". Can you synch us up.  Make sure that all the proper redirects head to his bio. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought over Bubba and Teflon Bill, sourced, in the Public Image section. I made and checked redirects and dabs to Clinton. – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if that list was synched with this article too, but not required.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled across an issue while fixing redirects. I was contemplating adding   here and  there, but I decided to go with  there. Thoughts? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how I would have done it as well. – Quadell (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where should a "First Black President" redirect point (Clinton or Obama)? Should there be a redirect hatnote on the other? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "first black president" was a reference, but not a nickname. I don't think it should rd or dab to Clinton at all, personally. As for Obama, many other countries had black presidents before the U.S. So I'd leave that one alone, personally. – Quadell (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do your best to alternate sides with images. Consider quote boxes as images (reformat these quote boxes to the same format as Clint Eastwood's).  Use Template:Multiple image as necessary (see Vincent Van Gogh). --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:NAFTA signing.jpg needs to have its license determined.
 * The source doesn't indicate that this is actually PD. I searched online using TinEye and Google reverse image search, but couldn't find any information about it's license. So I nominated it for deletion on Commons and removed it from this article. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * File:President Clinton by Molly Gilliam, 1999 (DOD 990505-F-7597G-005) (514619639).jpg needs a proper PD license. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * File:FEMA - 14697 - Photograph by Ed Edahl taken on 09-05-2005 in Texas.jpg & File:Hillary Clinton Bill Chelsea on parade.jpg need caption tweeks. Full sentences end will full stop periods. When it is not a full sentence, no full stop. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right-o. Done. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * should probably on his civilian years photos before and after his public service years. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, good, images are more my cup of tea. I'll try to do this today or tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All finished. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I question the organization of parts of the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * a) The article presents numerous literature references as further reading, but relies on online sources for its text. Much more could be done with traditional primary sources. b) There are places where more citations are needed. c) I do not believe there is any original research in the article although citations are spotty in a few places.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There are numerous things that might be added but nothing is really too detailed or far removed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image review forthcoming
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is a challenging responsibility for its editors. In this case the editor is a less frequent Wikipedia contributor than is often the case. I have slowed the pace of my review to give extra response time.  Unfortunately, that has not seemed to help. I have been quite thorough in this review, due to the level of importance of the subject.  I hope that the article can be improved in response to my detailed concerns. As is standard, I will evaluate progress of this nomination in seven days. The 7-day hold period begins now. Good luck to the nominator and anyone else who might chip in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is a challenging responsibility for its editors. In this case the editor is a less frequent Wikipedia contributor than is often the case. I have slowed the pace of my review to give extra response time.  Unfortunately, that has not seemed to help. I have been quite thorough in this review, due to the level of importance of the subject.  I hope that the article can be improved in response to my detailed concerns. As is standard, I will evaluate progress of this nomination in seven days. The 7-day hold period begins now. Good luck to the nominator and anyone else who might chip in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on other reviews:
 * Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1 (November 2008)
 * References still a problem
 * {The New York Times, 02/16/93, p. 1 is not a proper citation).
 * Accessdates and dates needed for online sources.
 * Provide author when known. Many examples including "Clinton backs NTR's environment foundation". The Irish Independent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a half dozen dead links and a couple suspicious ones according to the toolbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive3 (September 2009)
 * The nominator made some initial responses to the extensive PR3 in the first 24 hours but lost steam.
 * Many of that review's issues remain unaddressed, including chronology/organization and stubby paragraphs.


 * Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive4 (October 2010)
 * Again the nominator (who is the same one as for this review) lost steam.

Overall, I am concerned that this biography is one where nominators who feel fondly of the subject are merely looking for a quick "It looks O.K." response when a lot of work needs to be done. This article will not meet the ever-increasing WP:WIAGA standards without substantial effort.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been unexpectedly busy but, even if this fails I will make the corrections and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you make the corrections from the PR4 before submitting?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take over this nomination. It's a long article, so give me a few days. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no rush. Often, on long reviews I go through several weeks of back and forth. E.G., Talk:Missouri River/GA1 took from 2/9 until 4/6.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am just realizing that you are the same editor that came to the rescue at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. I am confident that this review is in good hands now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I have now resolved all necessary issues. It's a very long nomination review, however, and I might have missed something. I've now put in far more hours than I ever expected to on this nomination -- it's a tough one! There may still be areas we respectfully disagree on details, but I hope the current version is judged to pass all GA criteria. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still working on "Honors and accolades" and the references. I think that's all that's left... – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now completely overhauled the references. A few egregiously bad refs have been redone. All broken link have been repaired or replaced. Missing date or author information has been supplied where needed, and access dates have been supplied or updated as needed. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "After a failed attempt at health care reform, Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1994, for the first time in forty years." — this is something of a misplaced modifier; it wasn't the Republicans' attempt. —Designate (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, fixed. – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Two years later, in 1996, " — eh? —Designate (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a little redundant. I suppose we can count on our readers to be able to add 94+2. Removed. – Quadell (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost done

 * O.K. We are almost done. Things to keep in mind are as follows:
 * At some point we want to format a Domestic Policy section or dedicated article
 * You want to fill out the article that you have forked for honors and accolades
 * Watch for the creation of gubernatorial election articles
 * I sort of await a response on UN Envoy
 * We have moved the article way up the quality assessment scale and it passes WP:WIAGA
 * Basically, we just need to sit back and look at the article and reconsider the WP:LEAD. The LEAD prose is now at 2811.  I think 2800-2900 is about where we want to be.  For a WP:BLP we should leave a little room for future events and I think 3000 is full-size.
 * First, I am trying to determine the significance of Special Envoy. Is it really something that belongs in the LEAD?
 * In my opinion, it's the most important thing he's done since leaving office, so I'd say it belongs. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the TOC I think the only section not mentioned in the LEAD is section 4. Either it should not be a separate section or it should be represented in the LEAD.
 * Have we adequately represented his most important accomplishments (After NAFTA, does any additional specific legislation deserve to be named in the LEAD)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about the campaign. I'll try to add something to the lede about it. I think we've covered the most important presidential accomplishments in the lede, though that's pretty subjective. – Quadell (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As an outside opinion: I'd expect health care attempt, NAFTA, and welfare reform at a minimum, and they're all there. Other than that, maybe SCHIP but you'd have to spell it out, and the lead's pretty wordy already. —Designate (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Don't ask, don't tell ? Does that belong in the LEAD? Is State Children's Health Insurance Program more important than any content currently in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's borderline. I'd say it's acceptable to include DADT (though difficult to summarize in one sentence), and acceptable to include SCHIP, but it's also acceptable to omit (in my opinion) and only mention in the article.
 * I have some more suggestions to get back some LEAD real estate. For DADT, a phrase something like "Don't ask, don't tell, a controversial intermediate step to full gay military integration."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can find the space for it in the LEAD with this phrasing, we would need to include a mention of the more recent Obama legislation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, do the words Lewinsky and Whitewater belong in the LEAD? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lewinsky's name isn't in the lede, but the scandal is, and I think that's as it should be. (The scandal is very important to understanding Clinton's second term, but the person really isn't.) Whitewater was mostly about friends of Clinton, but not Clinton directly. (If they'd found anything, I'd say it should be in the lede. But they didn't.) – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we have pushed up toward the high end of the LEAD length, could "Clinton ran for President in 1992, defeating the incumbent George H. W. Bush despite the very high approval ratings he had held the previous year." be recast as "Clinton unseated incumbent President George H. W. Bush in 1992 despite Bush's high approval ratings"?
 * Yes, that's better wording, thank you. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also could "a failed attempt at" just be "failed"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. Seems to me that the attempt failed, not the reform. It wasn't even a single bill, but more of a general idea of reforming healthcare that never went into effect. So I think "failed attempt" is a good way to put it. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K. How about "failed attempt at health care reform" -> "failed health care reform attempt"
 * "Clinton was re-elected and became" -> "the re-elected Clinton was"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "his wife Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign and subsequently in that of President Barack Obama" seems overly wordy. Do we need to say "his wife" and could "that of President Barack Obama" be "President Barack Obama's"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I reworded this a bit. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clinton teamed with George W. Bush to form the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund." -> "Clinton and George W. Bush formed the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I opted for the other shortening, below. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clinton was born and raised in Arkansas where he grew" -> "Born and raised in Arkansas, Clinton grew"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear improvement, done. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clinton grew to become" -> Clinton became.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The larger University of Oxford is shorter than the specific University College, Oxford as another suggestion for trimming.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the specific alma mater is better here. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying not to push the lead because the fineries of politics is not my thing. However, it is far more common for people to say Oxford or University of Oxford than the specific college.  The first other Rhodes Scholar I looked at (Bill Bradley) just has Oxford and that is a WP:GA already.
 * "In the aftermath of" could be shortened to Following or After. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not noticing this earlier, but the magnitude of the surpluses is not presented here. The text should expound upon the summary in the LEAD. At the very least, I think the reader should know the magnitude of each surplus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll need to find that information. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With the number of times the word Clinton is in the 3rd paragraph, we could go with one more pronoun in the second sentence, changing Clinton to he.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Above, I have proposed a lot of verbiage changes to shorten the character count. Basically, I would like to close this with a LEAD under 2900 characters that includes both SCHIP and DADT, if possible. It is up to you to make decisions like whether the extra characters to describe the specific college are more valuable to the reader than adding these things.  I really don't want to remove any substance from the lead to add these two things.  We can go back and forth a bit and I will make more suggestions on things for you to consider shrinking.  Maybe we can get both of them in. We are now working from 2859.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that's possible. I'll work on that. – Quadell (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added info about DADT and SCHIP in the lede, and shortened a lot in ways you mentioned and a few I found on my own. That brings the lede to 2966 characters, including spaces. (I also added budget surplus data in the appropriate section.) – Quadell (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see those surplus numbers in the source. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They were in ref 48 (the PDF), not 47 (FactCheck). I have now switched the order of the refs to more accurately reflect where the information came from. – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we mention later fuller gay integration?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the lede's already pretty crowded... – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being really picky, but this is probably the highest importance GA I have reviewed. Looking at character count, I still hope to take it down to 2900.  Pleas consider some of the following:
 * "member of the Democratic Party" -> Democrat
 * I prefer the longer wording here, if possible. – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SCHIP, providing health coverage for millions of children. -> State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a rather self-explanatory name.
 * I don't mean to be contrarian, but I don't think it's self-explanatory that it actually provided insurance (rather than regulating).
 * Governor of the state of Arkansas-> either Governor of Arkansas or Arkansas Governor
 * Yes, and actually, the fact that he was Gov or Ark is mentioned later in the lede. No offense to Arkansas, but I'm not sure that belongs in the first (or 2nd) sentence. So I took out that part, and linked Governor of Arkansas later in the lede. (This change also makes it clearer what the "Inaugurated at 46" bit refers to.) – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As Governor of Arkansas, Clinton overhauled the state's -> As Governor, Clinton overhauled Arkansas'--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is now the first time the lede mentions him being governor of Arkansas, I figure the state should be in the first clause. – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. confirm that I am not leading you astray with my summary of DADT. Do you think the sources view it the way I told you to summarize it. I basically view it as Clinton's Three-fifths compromise on gays since it was all the country was ready for at the time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I wasn't sure how to sum up some a complex issue in a sentence, but this works beautifully. – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm comfortable taking much more out of the lede. I'm twitching to be done with this one, one was or another, to be honest... – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with pretty much everything, especially the WP:LEAD. As he continues to do notable things we have room to keep the lead tight. Certainly in the future, we may want to change "member of the Democratic Party" -> Democrat or Democratic President; SCHIP, providing health coverage for millions of children. -> State Children's Health Insurance Program; that of President Barack Obama -> Barack Obama's and such.
 * My only question is whether in the main body we should mention the later fuller gay integration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, in the body! Yes, I would say so. I'll try to incorporate that later today. – Quadell (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a wrap-up sentence on DADT's repeal, with a cite. – Quadell (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quadell, I commend you on your patience, dedication and excellence as an editor. Thank you for putting up with me and my attempt to review an article outside of my expertise. You are commended for stepping in for another editor for a second time (after jumping in previously at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1).  I thank you for taking the initiative to pay the proper attention to a high-importance biography in need of expert editorial attention. Taking this article from our starting point to the current version with an extensive effort is commendable. I am now passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Chelsea & Mr. President, after the 120,000 birthday responses following the Foundation's appeal that Chelsea voiced so eloquently, I hope my effort here does not get lost in the shuffle. On behalf of all of Wikipedia, we pledge to continue to "improve the lives of others" by making information available to the world. Thanks for asking me to be involved and giving me a chance to demonstrate how wikipedians as public servants can participate in this commitment. I tried to guide the improvement of this article without doing you any favors, sir because that would be a disservice to the world of people who need to be able to learn about you. I apologize that, like any encyclopedia, we are only able to summarize what public domain sources say. Thank you for you leadership and your own efforts to continue to "improve the lives of others" and again, belatedly, Happy Birthday!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)