Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/George H. W. Bush/1

George H. W. Bush

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/George_H._W._Bush/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering the high profile nature of this article, I figured it'd be best to bring it to the community. All in all, it isn't in completely terrible shape, but there are uncited portions of paragraphs and a incomplete list tag that has snuck into it. In addition, one of the later sections is effectively formatted as a list of trivia and another just has a link to Bush's electoral history without a general summary. I wouldn't have been drawn to bringing this here, but it has had a GAR request tag on it since 2014 and no-one has picked up on the issues present to prevent this. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick problem I have noticed with this article is that there are a lot of dead sources. Using the article's checklinks page shows a lot of dead sources. Will211 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just went through and corrected nearly all of these (those categorized as dead/marked in red). 03:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I came with the thought of closing this if the issues mentioned by Miyagawa had been dealt with, but I see some issues with a number of the criteria. A few examples: Overall, the article needs some work to be back at a GA level, but it's not insurmountable, and it could survive this reassessment if the necessary work gets done. If someone volunteers, and someone else is willing to give the article a closer look for a more comprehensive and detailed list of issues, this can end happily. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Well-written criteria, there are a couple of problems with the lead section: first (and less important to my mind), it exceeds the maximum recommended length of four paragraphs. More important, there is the passage in the fourth paragraph, starting "In the wake of", that has a couple of issues to my mind. There is an implied cause and effect that I don't believe is necessarily true with the Clarence Thomas appointment, and even if it is, the appointment and its controversy is not mentioned at all in the article beyond giving Thomas's name the year appointed. Thomas should be mentioned in the lead—the appointment was quite controversial and Thomas is still on the Supreme Court 35 years later—but the body of the article needs more on the Thomas appointment, and either needs to substantiate the implication that it helped cost Bush his re-election, or that sentence needs reconstructing.
 * I would recommend pulling the Honorary degrees and Awards and honors sections out of the Presidency section (most of the degrees were granted either before or after his presidency), and perhaps have a section that is not chronologically based where this could go, since it also doesn't necessarily fit post-presidency.
 * The Post-presidency section has a number of short squibs—a line or two each—that make the flow very choppy. Some revision and/or reorganization would seem to be in order here.

From what I can tell, the large majority of the concerns above remain. As such, I propose this review (which is now almost nine months old) be closed and the article be delisted. Does anyone have any objections to this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * AustralianRupert, delisting would be fine with me. The issues I raised have not been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would concur. Miyagawa (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries, I will delist it now as it seems that there is a consensus amongst the main reviewers to delist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)