Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gregory R. Ball/1

Gregory R. Ball

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: No consensus. Like the nominator and Majoreditor, I'm not convinced that this article is neutral, but no clear failings of the GA criteria have been raised in the last month, so there is no reason to delist the article or continue this GAR. The article might benefit from a fresh GAR if someone is willing to initiate it. Geometry guy 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a blatant political advertisement for Greg Ball. It does not give the controversies he has been involved in even-handed treatment and it meks it seem as if he has accomplished far more than he's actually done. The Courage Cup controversy is entirely white washed (read the sources for the real story). And the spitzer section is no better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datawants82 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. WP:SPA nom during a campaign season. Having similar troubles on his opponents article as well, with childish vandalism and glowing tributes from both sides. Several other SPAs have been blocked for 3RR/edit warring on both, and it may be time for a SSP/RFCU. This article was reviewed by one of the best GA reviewers, and also underwent Wikiproject Peer Review and Peer Review. MrPrada (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article merits a closer look. There could be some NPOV issues. It contains a lengthly quote from Ball in the "USAF service" section, giving it the appearance of a campaign brochure. I'll need to re-read the article, but at first glance I was surprised by the lack of critical material. Are we sure that the article is as complete and even-handed as it should be? Majoreditor (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I got that idea from Calvin Coolidge after finding an additional source of biographical information during comments from an A-class review that the military section was too short. I thought it was an interesting and relevant quote, seeing as a lot of his post-military career deals with immigration. It never hurts to have another reviewer, but enough of the meatpuppets and vandals already. I have been commended at ANI for the extreme level of patience and willingness to work with these people that I've shone, even though they've leveled some very visceral, baseless and extreme anonymous criticism towards me. The Ball article reads very similar to the Barack Obama FA, and the criticism is worked into the article per the standards. Right now I am more concerned with their efforts to insert advertising and whitewash the article of his opponent in a WP:TEAM effort between the two articles, but I will continue to try and work with these editors, I know that eventually reasonable editors will step in and correct the issues. MrPrada (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The WP:SPA argument is generally better used on persons of questionable notability and for accounts created by the SPA. This article would have passed any notability test prior to the involvment of the SPA because it When the article looked like this, it was not a great article, but it was an article that a person interested in the subject could greatly improve.  I have done similar duty for my congressman (Jesse Jackson, Jr.).    This article may need some balance for WP:NPOV concerns.  Any article short of an WP:FA (i.e. about 99.9% of all articles) probably needs some work.  The idea that this is a single purpose account is also not appropriate.  The primary author (MrPrada) is a person who is interested in Hudson Valley politicians and politics.  his edits reflect as much.  He has made 9338, 476 of which were for the article in question.  I think an SPA argument is invalid when less than half of the edits are for the article in question. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think the nomination of this article reflects more poorly on the nominator than the alleged SPA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the nom too quickly because it was unsigned and the first sig came after a SPA claim. The defendant was calling the nominator an SPA as I reread this. I have to re-edit my keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. Speedy Keep Nominator is an WP:SPA who is probably WP:POV pushing as suggested by defendant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The USAF service references a Sports Illustrated cover and the source only references the magazine in general. Can you ref the exact issue and cover at www.sicovers.com?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I got that sentence from the Courage Cup's website (which is all messed up right now), but from google I'm starting to be convinced that the cover article was about the Work to Ride charity and not the Courage Cup it self (although there was a SI article about the Courage Cup as well). I will spend a day or two looking into this further and make sure the information presented is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPrada (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that on the cover the article may have been mentioned in text. I imagine the cover truly featured another story.  However, if we can get the date of the cover that would be helpful.  I can't find either Work to Ride or Courage Cup in the SI cover archive.  Please see my other suggestions below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple other suggestions.
 * rm the word prestigious (POV)


 * link first instance of David Patterson and delink later instances.


 * link your WP:CAPTIONs better (aubry, spitzer, and notable things and places should be linked)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the article I lean toward Delist. This is more of a haliography than an evenhanded assessment of a politician. There's barely a peep of criticism in the article, despite Ball's strong stands on iessues. While I'm not a fan of "Criticism " sections, I expect that there's been noteworthy criticism of him and his actions in office. Yet I see little to nothing of the sort in this article. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your rationale. We should delist based on the assumption that there may or may not be some criticism written about a politician thats been in office for a year and a half?. Remember, this article has been Project Peer Reviewed and Peer Reviewed. Where were these concerns then? I think you need to list some specific concerns before we consider delisting, as the article features less hagiography and more criticism then FAs such as Barack Obama. I've basically listed 230 articles from local papers as references. If you can find anything in addition to that that may contain some noteworthy criticism, you're welcome to add it to the piece, however for a thirty year old local politician whose been in office for 18 months, I doubt you'll find much more. In the meantime, I have never voted to list/delist based on an assumption. MrPrada (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you didn't notice published criticism like this article from the 2/10/2007 New York Times. To quote part of it:
 * But others were displeased. Keith L. T. Wright, a Harlem assemblyman and a Democrat, said that if Mr. Ball believed the Legislature to be so dysfunctional, he should step down. “He should probably get to know what he’s talking about before he opens his mouth,” Mr. Wright said. “He just seemed to paint a broad brush on a legislative body that he probably ran very hard and spent a lot of money to get into.”
 * I certainly believe that there is always room for improvement. However, I'll need you to cite some examples, as I really don't see this article as being criticism-free. Your point is not clear at all. The NYT quote you cited-interesting, however, you'll note that the "most dysfunctional legislature in the nation" comment echoes a report by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice report which spends 60+ pages describing the the legislature as dysfunctional. A google search for dysfunctional and legislature returns 100 out of the first 100 articles about the...you guessed it... New York Legislature. There is nothing that impressive about the Ball quote, other then that he said it on his first day, on the floor of the assembly. Governors Eliot Spitzer, and David Paterson, also call the legislature dysfunctional on a regular basis, as stated in their articles. The New York Times also calls the legislature dysfunctional. Ball's opponent in 2006, Ken Harper, called the legislature dysfunctional, as described in the article. The wikipedia articles on the State Legislature describe them as dysfunctional. What exactly is there to balance? Wright's quote is in the realm of WP:FRINGE. MrPrada (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is clear: Mr. Ball, like most politicians, has come up for criticism. That's the nature of the job. I find it bizzare to have a criticism-free article on a polical figure who has garnered as much attention - both positive and negative - as Mr. Ball. In contrast, please see the FA-class articles on Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, both of which weave criticism into the articles where appropriate (for example, on abortion and "trickle down" economics".)
 * That's not to say that the article should be 50% criticism. However, the article in its current form has veered to another extreme by incorporating no dissenting views, despite the fact that reliable sources such as the New York Times have published such material. Please, try a bit harder to strike a proper balance. Failure to properly balance an article results in a non-neutral point of view, which violates GA criterion #4. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The immigration and gun control sections are the areas where he has drawn actual dissent, and that is already described in some detail, weaved into the article as your examples with the Reagen and Obama FAs. It is rather telling that Jackyd, or one of the Wikiproject peer reviewers and Peer Reviewers who checked this over before it became a GA, could have mentioned this as at least a minor concern to be addressed, and they did not. There is always room for improvement, as this is not an FA yet, but to delist based on a bad faith nom, when no examples of what needs to be fixed have been presented seems to be WP:GAME to me. When actual examples are cited, they can be fixed during the GAR process, and then we can decide whether or not to delist. MrPrada (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I spent a grand total of one minute on Google and found the New York Times article which clearly points out that Mr. Ball has come in for criticism from fellow legislators. I'd not be so quick to dismiss an assemblyman's comments - or the NYT's coverage - as "fringe". Why omit it from the article? I also differ with your assessment of whether the immigration and gun control sections contain critical points of view toward his positions; I see nothing at all in the gun control section and nothing in the immigration section other than a journalist disputing one of the statistics Ball quoted.
 * I think my point was that the commonly accepted view is that the legislature is dysfunctional, and the idea that it isn't is a fringe view. The NYT article does not go into detail on criticism from fellow legislators, outside of the context of the dysfunctional legislature quote on the floor of the assembly. MrPrada (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is well-composed and needs just a bit more work to ensure that it meets GA standards for NPOV. Majoreditor (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the Schimel seciton did a good job of presenting the opposing viewpoint. As for the immigration, outside of opinion pieces and letters to the editor, there are really three articles which go into detail on criticism of the immigration stances. However I think they misrepresent to some degree the nature of his position, which is a bit more nuanced (And I think is well reflected in the article's current format). Nonetheless I will get to adding the sources tomorrow. MrPrada (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly expect that a biography article of a politician of sufficiently marginal notability that he only appears in the national press a few times would include all references in the national press. I would include both articles at http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&q=%22Gregory+R.+Ball%22+site%3Anytimes.com&btnG=Search (as they are).  I would also continue to watch Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, U.S. News, USAToday for any and all mentions of his name.  If no negative press can be found, surely his political opponent had some arguments against his candidacy.  Try to mention them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly expect that a biography article of a politician of sufficiently marginal notability that he only appears in the national press a few times would include all references in the national press. I would include both articles at http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&q=%22Gregory+R.+Ball%22+site%3Anytimes.com&btnG=Search (as they are).  I would also continue to watch Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, U.S. News, USAToday for any and all mentions of his name.  If no negative press can be found, surely his political opponent had some arguments against his candidacy.  Try to mention them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)