Wikipedia:Peer review/Dick Cheney/archive1

Dick Cheney
Give us feedback about what kind of expanding/adding and improving this article needs to become a featured article. If anyone can expand Dick Cheney that would also be great too. Thanks. Aqua fish   talk  21:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When you've finished everything else, expand the lead to a "brilliant and compelling" three-paragraph summary of the article. Currently, it's too short, and not enticing.  See WP:LEAD.
 * Heading "Cheney and the draft": refer to WP:MOS about section headings. Could be just "Selective service".  Again on MOS, 3. Early political career and  3.1 Early White House appointments  - repetitious.  Could be just White House appointments.  Same problem at 7. and 7.2.  Health section seems out of place.  Plans for the future could be Future plans.
 * There are several short stubby one or two-sentence paragraphs, suggesting that the content has been added piecemeal. The prose may need to be organized into paragraphs with better flow.
 * Caption on launch of a destroyer could specify *which* destroyer, since that info is available for the image. Meeting in Saudi Arabia about Kuwait might have a month, year.
 * Mixed citations styles: convert all citations to cite:php.  (Please remember that refs follow punctuation, per WP:FN.)  All refs need to be converted to full bibliographic entries, rather than blue link URLs.  Example:
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
 * Froomkin, Dan. Olbermann's Special Comments. The Washington Post October 6, 2006.
 * Reliable sources: Is doctorzebra.com a reliable source? The Smoking Gun website? The article is massively undercited:  make sure all facts are referenced.  A lot of your references are to dead links:  try to use more enduring sources.  I added cite tags to one section only, as an example of the work needed throughout.
 * External links are not balanced, containing a preponderance of negative *editorial opinions* about Cheney. Is Source Watch a reliable source?  External links overall seem to have anit-Cheney POV, need to attain balance, and needs to use only reliable sources.  WP:EL and WP:RS.
 * Prose - picking a random sentence: Both supporters and opponents of Cheney point to his reputation as a very (say he is s) shrewd and knowledgeable politician who knows the functions and intricacies of the federal government.  Opponents however accuse him of following (say he follows) policies that indirectly subsidize the oil industry and major campaign contributors, and hold (say) that Cheney strongly influenced the decision to use military force in Iraq. He is the leading proponent within the Bush administration of the right of the United States to use torture as part of the War on Terrorism and has been lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from Senator John McCain's proposed anti-torture bill.
 * The cite is dead.
 * What supporters, what opponents, according to what sources? Many redundancies in the text.  Statements should be clearly attributed.
 * I didn't look closely at any more of the text, as there are referencing problems throughout, and attribution for statements should be given.
 * Before approaching FAC, have a look at the tips given by different users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. I suggest citing the article thoroughly, polishing the prose, and then reapproaching peer review. Sandy 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The images kreep me out, it makes me feel like I'm looking at a campaign brochure. Are there no images of him that don't feature him kreepily grinning into the camera with the American flag in the background? Image:Richard Cheney 2005 official portrait.jpg, Image:Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney, official portrait.jpg, Image:Dick Cheney at the 2003 State of the Union.jpg, Image:Dick Cheney.jpg, brrr...  I have not read through the whole thing in detail, but it seems to me that a lot of criticism is absent. For instance "human rights" is not mentioned once in the whole article, but with just a brief google search I see him proclaiming some nonsense like this here. There is barely any mention of his role in the second invasion of Iraq, and the mention of the Halliburton-related corruption incident is rather brief.--Konst.able 08:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)