Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jean Schmidt/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 21:06, 18 September 2007.

Review commentary

 * User:PedanticallySpeaking, User:John Broughton notified. WP U.S. Congress, WP Biography notified.

This article got a spurt of attention prior to this politician's election, but now it has suffered major linkrot, even for the few in-line references that still exist. Naturally, some of these material dealing with that time period can undergo compression now that the heat is off and 20/20 hindsight kicks in and provides some perspective and maturity about what will still be Important one or two years later. Also, a very large section of "notes" that were links to news articles has just been dumped in the Talk page.--SallyForth123 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please notify relevant editors and Projects with Jean Schmidt and leave a message here about notifications, per the instructions at WP:FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that PedanticallySpeaking declares himself on his userpage to be wikibonked and that he has been inactive for several months. If this article remains FA, I suggest, because it is a BLP, that its talk page get a maintained tag on its talk page with at least one active user listed.--SallyForth123 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I think the article is too long by half, that it's not a particularly important article at this point, and that the linkrot significantly complicates the matter.  And I have other commitments, so I hope someone(s) with more time and energy is(are) willing to work on the article.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:SchmidtFamily.gif and Image:Jean Schmidt Clermont Sun.jpg have no fair use rationale. The former is replaceable.  Pagra shtak  17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference quality (1c and 2d), focus (4), and images (3). Marskell 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove, lots of work still needed here, after more than a month. References are unformatted and incomplete (see WP:CITE/ES).  SERIOUS lack of citation on GOBS of hard data and direct quotes.  WP:MOSBOLD, WP:MOSDATE and WP:DASH issues, and punctuation on image captions needs attention (see WP:MOS).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How did this get to be a FA?
 * "two months into her first term"—At the top. Problem is, her term is not defined in chronological terms until later.
 * MOS breach: logical punctuation required for quotes. It's not even consistently wrong through the text.
 * MOS breach: "four-year career"—with the hyphen.
 * "hurting its tax base"—Is that the right verb?
 * "The two also made joint appearances on WCET-TV's Forum on 28 July and WKRC-TV's Newsmakers on 31 July.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]"—Are all of those references necessary? Looks so nice visually.
 * Stubby paras.
 * Unencyclopedic subtitles, especially in "Special general election" (whatever that is): they read like a policial brochure.
 * Inadequate referencing, e.g., "Schmidt repaid the lobbyist for the cost of the entertainment. Her spokesman told The Columbus Dispatch "Jean specifically asked if this was a reportable gift. We immediately corrected it by paying the full price of the tickets." Her former colleague Raussen blamed Colby. "Here we have a lobbyist who was extremely sloppy."
 * Overall, disjointed. It's the kind of effect you'd get from politically motivated visitors to the site who are out to sanitise the article. Tony 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.