Talk:Tom DeLay/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.'' As part of WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs major work to meet current criteria, outlined below: Given the serious underlying issues and amount of unsourced content, I am boldly delisting the article at present. You may renominate at WP:GAN at any time, but I encourage working with a team of editors to deal with the POV issues. Contact me at my talk if you have further questions. Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's significant issues with bias and pushing a POV, starting right off with a hatnote directing people to Tom DeLay campaign finance investigation (which, considering the article is entirely outdated, is a double insult).
 * What's with the long-winded explanations of his nicknames in the lead? How are these so notable they have to be included here and in the already-bloated infobox?
 * "Previously, in season three of Dancing, DeLay made his then-biggest foray back into the public eye when he publicly campaigned against "smut" and for "his good friend, country music singer, and GOP supporter" Sara Evans, before she withdrew from competition on the show due to her very sordid, public divorce from her then-husband, a Republican politico." More borderline notable shading.
 * "On August 19, 2009, while making the media rounds to promote his participation on the upcoming season of Dancing, DeLay made political news when he became perhaps the most famous Republican yet to promote the "birther" conspiracy theory about President Barack Obama." Source?
 * The article is poorly structured, with much of the personal life section meaningless so early in the article (we don't even know when he was in the Texas legislature for his comments to make sense.)
 * Significant parts of the article are unsourced, particularly in early career.
 * Significant focus on controversies, going into excessive detail.