Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Chinagate controversy

Timeline of United States and China relations 1995-1997
Withdrawn Self-nom. Timeline of United States and China relations 1995-1997 is a companion timeline to the featured article 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal which I wrote. I put months of work into this (there are over 130 unique references) and I think you all will find it interesting to say the least. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Jayzel 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: Lead claims it goes to May 1997 but text goes to December. Also, no clear reasoning for the start and end dates is given. Rmhermen 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is the introduction for others to see: "The Timeline of United States and China relations 1995-1997 consists of documented information relating both to the 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal and the People's Republic of China's alleged nuclear espionage against the United States detailed in the Congressional report known as the Cox Report. The timeline also incorporates information relating to the actions of the Clinton Administration and the government of China between May 1995 and December 1997."


 * Clearly, the lead claims to go to December 1997. I'm at a loss where you see "May 1997". As for your other comment, the reasoning for the time period is due to the main actions relating to the two issues in question. Namely, the campaign finance scandal and the nuclear espionage investigations. I take it you don't have any complaints regarding POV issues, facts, and references? --Jayzel 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must have read the dates backwards. Rmhermen 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that the events listed in May are related to those two issues. And the last event is in 1998 and implies further events not listed. Seems to be relatively short of Chinese events versus those occuring in the U.S. Rmhermen 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe your concerns have been addressed. Originally, the timeline had a different title and I should have deleted some of the info when I changed it. Now that it's a bit shorter, it's easier to read. I hope you like it! Thanks!--Jayzel 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This has a lot of good points, including the summary box in the top right (though I am not sure if PLA is worth linking to as a related issue, any more than linking to the U.S. Army would be). However, the scope of the list is a little confusing. It seems incredibly arbitrary! 1995-2000 would make a little more sense purely numerically; there doesn't seem to be a clear topical reason to stop at 1998. It would also be nice if there other timelines of U.S.-China relations on "either side" that could be linked to, to form something of a series. TheGrappler 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed PLA from the issues list. That was meant to go under related groups. Perhaps the problem is with the title of the article. Until I can think of a sutable title I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thanks! --Jayzel 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Object That name's just a redirect. The article's actual name is "Timeline of the Chinagate controversy". First, Chinagate is hardly a neutral name, though in some right wing circles, it's common enough. Second, this is a hodgepodge of stuff about campaign finance and weapons deals. The only common thread is that some folks use the phrase Chinagate to refer to essentially any controversial contact during that period with China. But, under any name, that leads to the false, or at least unsupported, impression that this is all one coherent event instead of bits and pieces of various contacts all juxtaposed. It's probably a better candidate for AFD than for featured status. Derex 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has already been withdrawn Derex. No need to object. P.S. Chinagate isn't just a name "rightwingers" use. Plenty of middle of the road folks use it too (myself included). Regardless, even if your evil right-wingers only used it, it would still be valid. The term's been used in the media many times. By the way, did you see my work over at the old Chinagate page? I rebuilt the page, changed the title of the article, and got it featured on the main page back in April. By the way, how's you Plame Affair page going? I stopped checking in back when it reached 160 kilobytes! ;) --Jayzel 02:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I checked it a while back. I generally liked what you did with it. (Otherwise, you'd know it by my presence there ;)  While I'd quibble with a thing or two, I think you did a pretty reasonable job of keeping it NPOV and informative &mdash; especially for someone who does have a strong POV (or so I gather by the freep posting).  I recall that this is roughly what you initially posted there.  Didn't like it then, and clearly don't like it any better now.
 * I haven't edited Plame Affair much (if any) that I recall. I did participate in Talk there for a few days with some joker who didn't understand NPOV tags.  Ended up having to clarify the official guidelines after that, to prevent willful misinterpretation. Derex 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked it. I can do anything with a NPOV. I'm a trained journalist (Old school journalism -- not this new infotainment crap). My Freeping days ended many years ago, BTW. There were many intelligent researchers there back in the late 1990s. None now. That's why I'm here. I can't stand rabid ideologues of any stripe. Anyhow, this isn't really the place for a chat so I'll bid you adieu. It's getting late in my neck o' the world. Time to hit the sack! --Jayzel 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "... can't stand rabid ideologues of any stripe" &mdash; common ground. Derex 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I am not sure if this meets the completeness criteria. This looks like hand-picking the set of news the editors of the article "think" are relevant to the article. While writing FAs on Timelines are easy as they need to follow Summary Style, FLs should be complete. There are events that people can argue have nothing to do with the Chinagate controversy while someone can come up with another piece of news and claim it is significant enough. If the editors have a definition of what is considered notable enough event to be mentioned in this list, I might reconsider my opinion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)