Talk:Ernie Fletcher/GA1

GA Review
Reviewer: Meishern (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC) ~ Hello,

I will review this article. Please give me a week or so. Meishern (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

-- OK. The way I review articles, is paragraph by paragraph, first checking refs. My goal is to get the article GA standard. So lets start with the intro.

-INTRO "He served as the 60th governor of Kentucky from 2003 to 2007. Prior to being elected governor, he was elected to three consecutive terms in the United States House of Representatives." Lets put dates he was in the House first, and continue with Governor dates.
 * Done.

What was his Bachelors degree and what year grad? refs.
 * This information is in the Early Life section, and it is referenced there.

What type of physician? (psychiatrist, neurologist, etc..) refs.
 * Not sure what his present specialty is, but as you can see in the Early Life section, he started as a family practitioner in 1984.

I don't know qualifications to become a Baptist Minister. Did he get certified, where? Church name & location. More info with refs.
 * To be a Baptist minister, usually a person would be licensed to preach by a local Baptist congregation, but some congregations may not even require that. (Baptists do not have a hierarchy the way Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and others do. The local congregation makes all the decisions.) To pastor a Baptist church, one is generally ordained by a local congregation after an interrogation by an ordination council. I don't know if Fletcher did either one of these things; no reliable source speaks to it.

"When legislative redistricting threatened to pit him against a member of his own party to retain his seat, he instead ran for Congress, " ... dont like this sentence. sounds POV. Make it more neutral.
 * The reliable sources say that was his reasoning for running for Congress. See the Legislative Career section for the appropriate reference.

"He immediately became one of"... same POV. rephrase this to make it neutral unless u show a reference.
 * Looks like you've already changed "immediately" to "soon" which is fine. See the Legislative Career section for details and references.

"over Ben Chandler, grandson of two-time former governor A. B. "Happy" Chandler." ... is this necessary? "over the 4th cousin of John, who was twice governor". remove it since he didn't beat Happy Chandler but a relative.
 * I would consider removing this, but the Chandler name is an influential one in Kentucky politics thanks to Happy. He was twice governor, a U.S. senator, Commissioner of Major League Baseball, and a force in Kentucky politics for half a century. Later in life, he became something of a perennial candidate for governor, but his endorsements still carried weight. Reliable sources say that his endorsement of Wallace Wilkinson contributed to Wilkinson's come-from-behind win in the 1987 gubernatorial race. That was just 4 years before Happy died at age 92. For Fletcher to have beaten Happy's grandson was no small feat.

The third paragraph of the intro better have a reference for practically every sentence. Some strong statements are made but I see nothing backing them up (references).
 * Read the rest of the article. It's all referenced there.

I would cut down the intro 3 paragraphs by 30%. There is too much useless info in my view and not enough relevant. This should be a quick overview not what the 3rd paragraph attempts to portray. (i am open to views on this subject)
 * Can we talk about the specifics of what you find "useless"? I've done my best to summarize a very tumultuous gubernatorial administration in just a paragraph.

You MUST put references into intro, or this will not pass.
 * Per my 60+ other GAs and 15 FAs, references generally do not appear in the lead or infobox, but are assumed to be cited in the body of the article. I actually used to cite the lead, but in one of my very first nominations, I was told that practice was discouraged. If you find a claim in the lead which is not cited in the body of the article, let me know.

Please remove photos of J Lenno, and candidates he defeated unless (reference) it was a major upset. Instead put photos of him with family, or flying plane, or doing surgery.
 * Sure, just as soon as they let me in the operating room with him, I'll get right on that. Seriously? You think those kinds of photos are just readily available, complete with a free license? I've used the most relevant free-use photos I have available. If you can point me to more relevant ones, I'll be glad to switch them out.

Please correct the intro and we will continue, you have 7 days.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

--- Early Life ---

His family had a farm, a general store and his father worked for a Gas Company. His family was transfered for a few years to a different state? Need explanation about farm and general store. Who ran it? Sold? Or exclude it. They moved around, but no mention regarding store and farm. did they sell it? bankrupt? let relatives run it? need info.
 * The reliable sources at my disposal do not speak to any of what you are asking.

I will do some adjustments, feel free to correct me.Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the rest of your review. I'll do my best to address your concerns where possible. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your responses and judging by your tone I think we can work on this article and get the GA. I sent an email to Mr. Fletcher asking if he is willing to donate some photos for Public Domain use. (never hurts to try).
 * Good luck with that. It would be nice to have such photos. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding referencing the intro, I randomly looked at Stalin and Reagan and the intro is referenced in both articles. So please reference the intro. I know the article itself is well referenced, and your rebuttals on every other point won me over, but the references in the intro will (in my view) make the article more solid. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalin probably isn't the best example, as it is neither GA nor FA, and thus, hasn't been officially reviewed against the MOS. Reagan's is an FA, so it is a better model. Only two cites appear in the lead; one for dates, the other for a direct quotation. Quoting from WP:LEAD, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." I've never been a fan of the "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" standard (it's too ambiguous, imo), but nonetheless, there is some language here about balancing the need for citation with the disadvantage of repeated citations. With that in mind, which facts do you consider "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I'll provide cites for those. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

--- Section: Legislative Career --- "character curricula"... could this be explained somehow or rephrased so that the average reader may get a better understanding what exactly it means? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

--- Section: Other matters of 2004 and legislative session of 2005 --- Thomas Clyde Bowling part should have subsection. I would break this section up. It is very interesting that a medical doctor orders an execution, and i feel deserves a section to itself. I will do it myself, see how article looks, and I am open to debate/opinion whatever on the subject. I just find it interesting. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also find it interesting, but I think the MOS would probably frown on creating two one-paragraph sections – as your edits did – in order to highlight it. I've reverted that change. We can discuss further if you wish.


 * Please look at changes I made up until 2005 sub-section. This was the 1st run, so I may have grammar errors, or rephrased a sentence where meaning was lost. I never edit political articles, and never will again. My head is spinning. Yet I faithfully read every word. So far it looks like a nice article. I just wish we had him with Leno. Also something else to think about. Since the first 2 photos are black/white, why not make the rest of them black/white as well to give article more consistency. I know Photoshop well, and can give the page a more consistent look. Up to you. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some revisions to your revisions of the prose. I have no problem hashing those kinds of things out with you over several edits, and I think many of your changes did improve the readability. I'd advise against making the color photos black-and-white. If you do, at least create copies instead of overwriting the originals, since they are probably used in other articles as well. I've never seen mixture of black-and-white photos with color ones cited as problematic before, but I suppose someone might think it is. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pass
I read through it all twice. Now I need a beer and a massage, lol.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article is well written in a neutral point of view with reliable/valid sources.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Reliable refs with most sentences referenced very well.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very broad in coverage. Lot's of interesting referenced facts.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral. I found the article to have 0% slant in either direction.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable. No edit wars.
 * 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):
 * Images present and are PD.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Article passes and is a GA.