Wikipedia:Peer review/The Political Cesspool/archive2

The Political Cesspool
This peer review discussion has been closed.. I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a significant amount of work on this article since the last Peer Review (including reorganizing the article and removing some extraneous material). Are there any more steps that need to be taken before this article becomes FA quality?
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Brief comment by Mcorazao: IMHO, the lead has a little too much of a critical bent to it (not that I am defending the program; just advocating for NPOV). The last couple of sentences in particular basically present the views of some its most ardent critics seeming to indicate that they represent the consensus of the experts. Rephrasing the sentences to describe this as an opinion of critical groups would tone done the appearance of bias. Additionally, it would be good to give more of an idea of the show's popularity and base of support to give balance to the discussion. Also, the article leverages groups with pretty specific agendas as sources for a lot of the criticism. It would be good if more mainstream sources (major news outlets, well-respected politicians and commentators, etc.) could be used more as sources. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes http://www.palmettoscoop.com/ a reliable source?
 * Statement sourced to palmettoscoop removed. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:- My points of concern raised on the talkpage, 25 November, were as follows. My up to date comments on these points are shown in italics.:-
 * "Other names" in the infobox: where does this unattributed description come from?
 * Now cited
 * The Foundation and history section still looks weak; the suggestions I put forward at peer review have generally not been implemented.
 * The section has expanded. I think tat the conservative credentials of Edwards and Farley should be mentioned at the start of the section, as the motive for their wanting to start a "paleoconservative" radio show. Some of the detail in the section, e.g. Farley's failed Congress bid, is irrelevant and should be removed.


 * Extraneous information removed. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The prose style is fragmented, with far too many short single-sentence paragraphs.
 * This seems to have been overcome
 * The article is further fragmented by having too many, usually very short, subsections.
 * This, too, is largely resolved.
 * All sources used are on-line. Has there been no analysis of the impact of this and similar radio stations in printed form (books, articles etc)?
 * It seems that you have tried, but have been able to find, reliable printed sources upon which to draw. Fair enough. Perhaps these will materialise when the programme is a little older.

In addition to these I have a couple of further points:
 * Staff section: it's a bit odd having a section called Staff which consists almost entirely of a subsection dealing with one member of staff. What I would do is call the whole section "Primary host", and include the brief info on other staff members in a sentence at the end. Like this:-

Primary host
James Edwards, a lifelong resident of Memphis, Tennessee, is the founder and primary host of The Political Cesspool. He is a lifelong resident of Memphis, Tennessee. In 2000, Edwards volunteered for Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign. He later said that this experience inspired him to become politically active, ... etc

...has written that Edwards "has leveraged sponsorship from neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups to become America's most popular white supremacist radio host."

Other staff of The Political Cesspool include primary host co-hosts Bill Rolen, Winston Smith, and Eddie Miller, and producer Art Frith. Most of the show's staff claim descent from Confederate soldiers.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 * Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Controversy and criticism section: "The Anti-Defamation League, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, has frequently criticized The Political Cesspool and its ideology." The Anti-Defamation League has already been listed as a critic of The Political Cesspool in the previous paragraph, so this sentence is unnecessary. You can attach the refs to the preceding paragraph.


 * Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All in all the article has developed well from when I last saw it. Most articles benefit from a copyedit from a fresh pair of eyes, and if you can find somwone willing to do this I think there will be further improvements. I raelly can't spare more time, but I hope that my contribution has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly has. Thanks! Stonemason89 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)