Wikipedia:Peer review/George W. Bush/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George W. Bush[edit]

Hello all! Where is the citation for this information???

<The weapons of mass destruction that the Coalition of the Willing invaded to capture have been found, but not in great quantaties. To date no significante evidence of nuclear or biological weapons have been found. There has been over 500 artillary shells found containing weaponized chemicals specifically Sarin and Mustard agents. These chemical agents, specifically Sarin gas have been used at times agains US troops by Iraqi insurgents.>

I did not read any news reports about more than 500 artillary shells found containing weaponized chemicals specifically Sarin and Mustard agents."

Where is the citation for this????

Hi All - With a better version in place, I request your help. I think the best thing we can do to fight instrinic POV issues of this article is to make it a featured article, that will be solidly defensible against vandalism and POV-warriors. It will also significantly help WP's reputation to be a reliable source on an important person. I must state here that this is not an article on the Bush administration, War on Terrorism or Iraq War. The data and prose must always focus on Bush the person, the individual. Rama's Arrow 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the size has reduced from 106kb to 64kb. Rama's Arrow 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could certainly stand to be shortened some more. Especially with all the offshoot articles, much information could be further summarized in this one.
On the "Early Life" section in particular, it is far from chronological. The numerous jumps around in time make it difficult to build an accurate picture of GW's development through childhood and early career. Lyrl 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some key aspects missing needed detail, such as medicare reform and health savings accounts, but mostly, there are too many unsourced statements for the article to have a realistic chance at FA status. Make sure all of those are fixed, and that all citations are made in one consistent format. Titoxd(?!?) 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, many sections are too dense, meaning that they are not illustrated enough. Titoxd(?!?) 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you have a prayer to get this featured — I don't see any way it can meet the stability requirement. Also, you're never going to be able to please the people that are clammoring for more detail on certain items, while keeping it to a reasonable length. To be shorter, which I believe it needs, you'd have to find some more detail to move off to daughter articles, not an easy task. Finally, while there are many cited facts, there are few very high quality references, and not enough cited facts to support the whole article on such a contentious topic without truly authoritative overall references. If you discovered what are considered the highest quality references on him and obtained and cited them, you might have a chance to quiet the edit wars. Then defending the article's quality would be easier because if no one could find a source with higher quality, they couldn't justify changes. As to form and structure, it seems to have everything looking right. Beyond that I don't really know enough about the topic to tell you if it is balanced right or has any major POV issues. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article is locked in an edit war, could use some level heads and neutral Points of View... maybe especially from wikipedians outside the U.S.A. Since this is a highly visible page, it seems to me unsuitable to keep it protected. See what you can do to help reach consensus. Thanks.Pedant 08:48, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

The article seems fine for now. Because of vandalism and edit wars, I see no reason it should not remain locked until after the U.S. elections in November. Davodd 23:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yes it seems okay. I think the one part that could be improved is in the foreign policy section; giving a rationale behind the various policy decisions. RJH 09:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fine for now but it still has a couple factual errors. There should be some mechanism for addressing them... for one, regarding Bush's first company: "Some of this funding came from Saudi Arabian nationals including the bin Laden family" this was partisan campaign disinfo. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. -=Steven
Um,it should be removed provided that it is wrong,shouldn't it?--CAN T 08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/George_W._Bush/archive1&oldid=188796922"