Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Willis Stephens

Willis Stephens
I think this is a well-sourced article that provides a NPOV about a colourful member of the Assembly who recently lost one of the most memorable local races in decades. MrPrada 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Electrawn
Overall: This is a start class article with a low priority. The inclusion of elected US state political figures does meet Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. Most people editors don't understand NPOV and how language implies POV.


 * Summary:
 * Titles are such as Honorable probably shouldn't be used. Manual_of_Style_(biographies)
 * Try and write from a worldview, American Politican? National headlines to US national headlines
 * Words/Phrases to Avoid: "Idiot" Potential defamation/false light and should be removed immediately. He is notable for a gaffe, not what he said during the gaffe. We don't want wikipedia implying Stephens thinks his constituents are idiots. The gaffe may or may not be relevant to a summary, just notable in the article.
 * "his constituents for past" Not needed.
 * Word to avoid: "crushed" Try defeated.
 * Remove "and lost republican nomination." Replace "September 2006 Primary" with "2006 New York Republican Primary election" Primary election may be redundant but may need to be included for worldview.
 * "newcomer" may be redundant and or unneeded.
 * Endorsement sentence should be moved out of summary and into article.
 * As of 2006, Stephens lives in ...
 * Remove Ginny and any other proper names from article in favor of privacy of the subject. He has a wife is notable, her name is not.
 * Missing Section: Early Life
 * Who, What, When where, WHy and How the man came to political power. Childhood, education, etc.
 * Political Career
 * Move Background information to sperate section, suggest "Early Life"
 * Move prose to past tense, such as represents to represented The X district between XXXX and YYYY.
 * Words to avoid: "Conservative" and "liberal". Overuse of these Cliched and misunderstood terms may imply POV. If there is a specific issue, such that has notable press commentary on an issue such as labor or gay rights, that may be notable. Conservative groups groups criticizing a liberal politician? Whoop de do...not notable.
 * Words to avoid: "watchdog". Overused and not worldview. Special interest groups may be better term.
 * Words to avoid: "heated" Overused, POV. Remove, let reader decide if the race was "heated".
 * Words to avoid: "mounted" Sexual innuendo, indirect POV. try "against" instead of "mounted by"
 * Use of "Challenger" redundant.
 * Words to avoid: "enourmous" POV. Let the figure speak for itself.
 * Words to avoid: "victim" POV.
 * citing -> saying
 * "highlighting close relationship" In current context, why a close relationship with XYZ is not adequeately explained. Entire statement is POV.
 * Words to avoid: "falsely" Unless it really is a FACT that is false, and backed up by a highly reliable source WP:RS, you should generally leave it out.
 * Words to avoid: "heavily" Criticised heavily? In what context? One citation = "heavily?" leave out.
 * Potential Libel "Trash Magnate" -> Try "successful in waste management industry" or something similar. Indicted by who?
 * Words to avoid: "vowed to" POV. "said he" will do.
 * lines -> run with XXX and YYY political parties.
 * Words to avoid: "Prominent" What context? Leave out.
 * Words to avoid: "gracefully" Usually not needed.
 * Words to avoid: "throw" "reliably" try... "for fear the XX district, held by Republicans for XX years, would leave Republican control.
 * Awkward: "Due to"
 * Missing Section: Marriage and Family
 * Mission Section or subsection: Legislation in New York Assembly
 * Controversy:
 * Most sections titled as such are irrelevant to a biography and frequently provide WP:NPOV, and potentially defame the subject in a false light.
 * Pontificating Idiots Email: Holy POV title, Batman! Try Email Gaffe or Email Guff
 * Discussion group, or listserv -> "online discussion group"
 * focuses on...-> read by many of the website Brewster.
 * Explain Briefly what Brewster is and relevance.
 * Text of Email:
 * Delete Text of email. Potential False Light defamation. The fact he made a guff/gaffe is notable, what he actually said really isn't. Inclusion makes wikipedia look like a tabloid and sensationalist. Links offsite to the article text are fine, just the actual text not included in wikipedia. Protect in favor of the subject.
 * Putnam Victory Fund:
 * Word to Avoid: "Heavy" See heavily above
 * Phrase to avoid: "Trash Magnate" See above.
 * Phrase to avoid: "reputed mob boss" Not needed in this article unless Stephens is involved with the mob. Else, inclusion may imply that Stephens is involved with the mob, potential defamation, leave out unless highly reliable sourced connections to mob. "ties to organized crime" may be more neutral.
 * Other missing sections per
 * References/Notes/Citations/See Also/External Links
 * Use of newscopy.org, a blog, is likely unreliable and probably doesn't fit WP:RS.
 * Use of Infobox is great, name of wife may need to be removed for privacy.
 * Bottom three external links irrelevant.

Needs significant work. Hopefully this makes an eye opening and excellent study concerning language use as POV. :) Electrawn 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou
First of all, I see this article is rates as A-Class. This is obviously wrong. These are my remarks:
 * Inline citations go straight after punctuation without a gap between the punctuation and the citation. You are inconsistent in this matter. Correct these mistakes.
 * Insufficient biographical information. In particular, the article lacks information about his early life. More details about his political career and his whereabouts after his defeat are also welcomed.
 * I'll agree with Electrawn that the article is POV. Most of it is a lonf criticism against Stephens. His defense is under-discussed.
 * We donot need the full text of the e-mail. Keep what you think most important and turn it into prose.
 * Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
 * You don't have to say "Assemblyman Stephens" all the time. 'Stephens" i is OK.--Yannismarou 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)