Wikipedia:Featured article review/1996 United States campaign finance controversy/archive1

1996 United States campaign finance controversy
Due to complaints and concerns from a long-time lurker on this article named User:Derex that the article fails the WP:NPOV policy and the references need to be vetted, I, the main contributer to the article, am requesting a community review. Personally, I am very proud of the article. I spent a lot of time doing research for it and, considering the controversial nature of the content, is as unbiased as possible. What do you think? --Jayzel 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a case for dispute resolution rather than FAR, and there appears to have been no attempt at dispute resolution: I have left talk page messages regarding appropriateness of this FAR nom.  Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no specific dispute, just vague concerns regarding the quality of the citations. As this is already an FA, this is the only place to turn to. This page's title is Featured Article Review, is it not? Regards, --Jayzel 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The talk page indicates a POV dispute: there are many vehicles for dispute resolution, and FAR is not the only place to turn. Also, since you have now removed Derex's POV tag twice, without attempting dispute resolution or consensus, it looks even more like a content dispute.  Sandy (Talk) 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From FAR Guidelines: FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV. I came here to resolve the issue (I don't call it a dispute because the complaint has no connection to the reality of the article). If you are not interested in reading the article and offering your thoughts on the fairness and acuracy of it then I thank you for your time. Regards, --Jayzel 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And, unless you submit the article to dispute resolution, and address the documented POV and OR, if this FAR proceeds, my vote will be to remove for unaddressed POV/OR. FAR should not be used to circumvent dispute resolution, because the likely result is that even if the featured status is removed, the POV/OR remains.  Dispute resolution is preferable, as it is more likely to address the problem.  Sandy (Talk) 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "documented POV and OR" in this article. If there is, then please post it here so the community can fix the article. Leaving POV and OR in an FA brings down Wikipedia's credibility. And claiming the campaign finance article should not receive a community review while claiming the same said article contains POV and OR brings down yours. Regards, --Jayzel 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note I have been asked to weigh in on this review and the situation it presents. I agree with Jayzel that FAR can be used when an editor feels that the article does not adhere to NPOV or is subject to OR.

It is my opinion, however, that Jayzel is using the FAR process to assert control and ownership over the content of the article. Primarily, that his views/opinions are backed by community consensus. I may be wrong but this is the impression that I am getting especially since one of the arguments is that the article passed through FAC and was approved by community consensus.

FAR is not a substitute for dispute resolution. Nominators are expected to specify the FA criteria that they believe is lacking from the article. Stating that another user feels that the article is NPOV is an inacceptable reason for submitting a FAR. Finally, editors are expected to solve disputes through consensus and conversation (e.g. refraining from calling other editors "lurker").

I believe that Jayzel is acting on good intentions and wishes for the article to be NPOV. I therefore encourage him to use dispute resolution in this particular case. Joelito (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for the reasoned commentary. Second, a correction: I was not trying to assert control over the article by arguing the article passed through FAC and my use of the word "lurker" was not in a negative manner. What I was trying to convey was that I thought this would be the best place to resolve any issues with the article because it had already passed FAC without any objections by Derex even though he had been lurking/visiting (and sometimes making minor/small edits) throughout the article's history. In other words, he was there throughout me writing the article and he was there throughout it's FAC, yet expressed no concerns during this process; he expressed no concerns when it was announced it would be featured on the main page. Then, months later, he blanked the introduction to the article and put up the NPOV tag and commented on the talk page that the article was "written to imply that the government basically sold nuclear secrets for a few campaign contributions" giving no examples from the article's text and without explaining what could be done to resolve the issue. That's the gist here. If everyone feels, however, that this is the wrong place to resolve this then I guess that's that, I suppose. For me, personally, there really was no issue to resolve and it appears Derex has no intention in pressing things further, so thank you all for your time. I still wouldn't mind another group vetting of the article, though, due to the controversial nature of the article and to keep future attacks by any political ideologues (both left and right) to a minimum. Regards, --Jayzel 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse removal of the FAR nom, recommend dispute resolution or request for comment first, and FAR if other means are not unsuccessful. Sandy (Talk) 23:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)