Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/George W. Bush/1

George W. Bush[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. This article is extremely lacking in NPOV. I found that various forms of the word "critic" are used more than 35 times, that's twice per section. I also found information that was incoherent and very poorly sourced in the Marriage and Family section which I deleted. I'm sure it is not the only poorly sourced information. It seemed to me that this article should have been called: George W. Bush Slander.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It will help if you provide specific examples of incoherent phrasing and poor sourcing in this GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article is so big it would be a considerable effort just to read the article nevermind look for problems. Szzuk (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't read the article completely, but it seems to me that there are plenty of good things said about Bush, as well as criticisms. This reflects his place in reliable sources. There is at least a decent NPOV there. Jujutacular ^talk 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing the POV problems, either. There are things I wish had been done differently (e.g., relying more on a handful of biographies and less on news stories from 20 years ago), but none of them seem to be problems that violate the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I reviewed the article and found not a single POV violator. The George W. Bush Slander thing is unnessary. Mike 2 8 9 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For such a sometimes controversial topic the article tries it's best to stay neutral. I don't see glaring POV issues either. GermanJoe (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles on major contemporary political figures are tricky to bring into balance. On the whole, this article doesn't tilt toward a particular POV. However, it would benefit from certain improvements:
- The "Marriage and family" section is largely devoted to his alcoholism, almost to the exclusion of other important details.
- The Richards lesbian rumor takes up too much space in the "Governor of Texas" section; this section whould be evaluated and key topics appropriately weighted.
- There may be opportunity to improve the bloated "Economic policy" section by trimming some of the excess. This section should be a succinct summary of the daughter article. I suggest trimming some (not all, mind you ) of the economic performance statistics and focus on describing the economic policies.

As a final note, I've spot-checked a few of the refs and photos. All of the ones I examined were in order. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close this as a keep when I read the vague nom, and saw that everyone was calling for keep; however, when I looked at the article I felt there were a number of issues - many of which are directly GA related. This is a high profile article so it is appropriate that we ensure it meets basic standards, even more so when we are declaring that we have vetted and approved the quality of the article. Fails criteria 6 (b) - some of the captions are overlong, giving a cluttered and messy look to the article; and not all the images are needed - many appear to be there just for decoration, and again give a cluttered, messy look which is diverting from the text. Still on images - some are squeezing the text, which is against WP:LAYOUT on criteria 1 (b). The article has a number of short sections, which is also against WP:LAYOUT on criteria 1 (b). There are six paragraphs in the lead, which is unhelpful and gives a disordered and off-putting appearance. Such poor organisation is apparent through much of the article, with a number of short paragraphs. Sometimes a short paragraph is appropriate - but this article has more than needed, and a period of attentive copyediting would benefit the article and so aid the reader. Linking is not part of GA criteria, but worth mentioning that the article is overlinked, adding to the messy look. It would be worth looking more closely at 3 (b), as some sections appear to contain "unnecessary detail" - the Approval section, Post-presidency section and Iraq section. I haven't examined other aspects of the GA criteria yet, but already I have serious concerns, and before we endorse this article as being one of our best, I feel a tidy up would be in order. If the article is not cleaned up, or if there is no ongoing work to clean it up within a reasonable time - say seven days (the GAR has been open over a month), then I would support a delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question While this is at issue with a lot of eyes. At Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2, we are debating the inclusion of "Slick Willie", "MTV President", "Comeback Kid" and "Boy Governor" and it has come to my attention that "Dubya" or at least "W." as recognizee in the film W.is not mentioned in this article. Isn't wikipedia suppose to present to the reader alternate names and nicknames.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to add that information (please), but I doubt that anyone would accept a claim that a nickname is a "main aspect of the topic" and therefore a matter for GAR to worry about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just read the article and found no major issues. It is neutral and has plenty of citations. meshach (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is this GA review over? Pls post on my talk page if any reply. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]