Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive2

Bill Clinton
I would like some general feedback in the article about the writing, style, references, images etc. Ive been able to expand the article greatly in recent months and would like to nominate it for an FAC run. I am aware however that there are quite a few things that need improving before I nominate and given the controversial subject of the article I think a peer review is definately needed! Thank you! LordHarris 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Books, books, books. I cannot emphasize this enough. Pretty much all of the current references are to online material. Using the main biographies of Clinton as well as his own autobiography would give a lot more credibility and completeness to the article; particularly if the article is able to show where and how his main biographers differ, etc. Savidan 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the comment. I've tried greatly to incorporate several written biographies and my life into the article and these are reflected up until the end of his administration. However post 2000 any new books deal with his presidency and early life not with his recent activities - only online sources focus on these. If you could perhaps identify some specifc areas where you feel a book reference could be used instead of an online one, I will gladly use the Clinton biographies I have to update the references. LordHarris 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What an excellent article - I really enjoyed reading that. Great citations. If 124 references doesn't impress at FAR, I don't know what will. I've started by looking at the images as that seems to be topical at the moment in FAR. Generally they are OK, mostly PD images. However, Image:Clinton at Georgetown 1967.jpg is a problem. It has neither a detailed fair use rationale nor does it specify where the image was obtained. Perhaps try contacting the original uploader to ask where they found it and then write a good fair use rationale. I would also change the caption for little Billy in his topcoat to read William Jefferson Blythe III, 1950 to be more accurate about his name in 1950. Image:Debates.jpg is also a copyrighted image and has a weak (one line) fair use rationale. The Georgetown poster is fairly unique and adds nicely to the early years of Clinton's career. It would probably be worth writing a good rationale to try to keep it in the article. The debate image I would personally replace with something else. The National Archives may have something else interesting to replace it with here . Image:Clinton approval rating.png should really be in .svg format (it's already tagged as such). It may not be a problem at FAR but there is a Wikiproject dealing with images that may be able to convert it and re upload. Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg is a copyrighted screenshot and is lacking a detailed fair use rationale. Likewise Image:Senate in session.jpg is not a free image and does not have an appropriate fair use rationale. Finally, (bet your glad i said that!) Image:Jp2presidents.jpg has a PD template (albeit an ancient one) but actually looks to be a copyrighted image. The good news is that the White House sent a photographer along and there is an even better shot of Bill at John Paul II's funeral here, which is probably a Public domain image. Hah! I just found it already uploaded on Wikipedia - Image:JPII on bier.jpg. I'd replace the one with the dubious tag with this PD image. That should keep you going for now - I'd be happy to give more comments, if these are useful and if you need some more help. Cheers, and keep up the great work. Paxse 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for your comments, they're most useful! Ill get on sorting out the images over the next few days and let you know my progress once I sort each one out. Thanks again. LordHarris 22:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Image:Jp2presidents.jpg replaced with PD image Image:JPII on bier.jpg.
 * ✅ Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale.
 * ✅ Image:Senate in session.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale.
 * ✅ Image:Clinton approval rating.png sent to Graphic Lab/Images to improve for SVG conversion.
 * ✅ Image:Debates.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale.
 * ✅ Image:Clinton at Georgetown 1967.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale
 * ✅ Image caption of Image of young Bill in 1950 rewritten
 * I have some minor quibbles about working. Some of it is redundant -- "considered" is used too frequently, for example.  I will make some minor changes. 22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
 * Great Job! I checked the rationales and they look good. Ok, I'll start going through again for some more ideas. One small thing - you need a nice caption to go with the Georgetown poster. I kinda feel that together with all those cites, the additional reading and external links section are almost too much - don't change it unless someone at FAR complains, it's just a thought as they dominate the article a little (though they are certainly comprehensive). More soon Paxse 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps stub Roger Clinton Sr. to avoid red links early in the article. Paxse 08:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Georgetown image caption wrote and Carter meeting image caption extended
 * ✅ Article created - Roger Clinton, Sr..
 * This is an amazing article compared to many of the articles I have seen here. However, naturally, it does have its problems. I would go through all the links and make sure the end up and the correct pages without redirects, check capitalization and spacing, fix anny grammatical errors and spelling, and things like that. I've already done a little bit of this, especially with the early biography and controversy sections. There are very few substantive errors I found, if any. Almost all facts are very well cited. Good luck with FA. --queso man 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, upon rereading the article, there may be a very subtle bias towards Clinton. Except for in the controversy section, everything seems to be pro-Clinton. The sources, too (The Natural by Joe Klein, for example) seem to reflect this too. I would try to diversify the opinions in this article. However, I'm sure it'll make it to FA regardless of whether you decide to do this or not. Also, considering that the article is 93 kilobytes long, I would aplit it up into smaller articles. A good way to do this would be by creating more specific pages using the subsections of this article, keeping a moderate-size summary here, and linking them with . --queso man 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about splitting the article up. Most of the sections already have a main article and each section on here is written in a summary style. If you could suggest a particular section that could be split up into a new article and summarised better we can work on doing this? I'll try meanwhile in moving some of the less important information to split pages like Foreign policy and the Clinton administration. LordHarris 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While trying to answer this, I realized that the parts that are too long are the parts that can't be split up (like the early biographical stuff). Of course, it wouldn't be a good idea to delete any information here (all of it is useful) or in the references section, which is also extremely long. So there's not much that can be done about it.
 * Examples of the above: There used to be a space after the slash after HIV, the term high leader was used even though there was nothing to suggest its meaning (I changed the wording), there are various awkward sentences sprinkled throughout, the most commonly cited source was "First in his Class", and only one scandal was mentioned in the intro even though more probably were notable enough to warrant a mention. There was also an almost unnoticeable lack of subject-verb agreement in some places, notably a part about the Republican National Convention being uninspiring. (I fixed most of these) I'm aware that most of these things are superficial, and it's unreasonable to ask for better even out of an FA article, but it's so hard to find mistakes in here. Once again, good luck with FA. I hope these reviews help. --queso man 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More examples: "In 1993, Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement for ratification by the U.S. Senate. Despite being negotiated by his Republican predecessor, Clinton, along with most of his Democratic Leadership Committee allies, strongly supported free trade measures." The phrase "despite being negotiated by" is awkward. Does this mean that Clinton was lobbied, or that George Bush also negotiated NAFTA? Also, what I interpreted as a subtle bias earlier was really just the fact that the scandals during Clinton's time in office are not given a lot of space in the article. I personally believe that most of these so-caled "scandals" are really non-issues, but some people may want a little more information as to what Clinton actually did to get impeached instead of just information on impeachement proceedings. There are a few grammatical errors, but these will be easily corrected. --Qmwne235 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The NAFTA section has been rewritten to make it clearer. I think the despite being negotiated by was a pov edit. The NAFTA idea was started under the Republic admin but this is mentioned in the NAFTA article, I dont think it needs mentioning here. LordHarris 11:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do about the scandals section really. The impeachment is mentioned in the intro and in the presidents section term and in its own subsection in the scandals section. IMO he was impeached as part of a massive republican conspiracy, which for years had been trying to get the President out of office. Whilst this is supported by dozens of pro Clinton books, documentaries, several journalists etc, it is just as opposed by dozens of republicans, anti clinton fans etc. However the legal reasons for why he were impeached i.e. the technical reasons are provided in the impeachment section. I'm not sure what else I could whilst keeping the section NPOV. LordHarris 11:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on the massive Republican conspiracy thing (I am very pro-Clinton), and that essentially most of these scandals were non-issues. However, if you ask most Americans what they'll remember most about Clinton, it would most likely be Monica Lewinsky. I agree that it's much more importnt to cover substantive policy issues. I think that a lot of the "bias" I encountered upon reading this article a second time was imagined (probably out of a desire to find stuff to put on this peer review) as, even before reading your comment above, I got the feeling that it wasn't there anymore. As for my bias examples about references, the references are all fine; I noticed where these pro-Clinton sources were used, and they were mostly in biographical sections. I also noticed that the controversy sections were split up. I'd noticed this earlier but I didn't see the extent of it. Overall, the article is written like a featured article ought to be written. --Qmwne235 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get this article to FA status, you should nominate it for the Core Topics Collaboration of the Week. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)