Talk:J. C. Watts/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Review by User:RayAYang[edit]

Hi -- this is just to let you know I've started the review. I'll fill in stuff as I go through it. Best, RayTalk 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Parts of the article are too listlike -- facts come too quickly, without appropriate transitions, breaking the flow of the narrative. Remember that all facts in a paragraph should be related to each other, and that there's no need to make a single sentence say 3 or 4 different things by tacking clauses on to it, and that this sentence is a perfect example of what to avoid. Also, consider breaking the section on his political career into multiple subsections. There's a humongous amount of material in there, and it doesn't flow together well. It's a bit of a pain to read through.
    B. MoS compliance:
    WP:LEAD states that the first sentence should include Mr. Watts' primary reason for notability, which are his accomplishments as a Congressman, and secondarily as a sports star. Of all the things he's been, businessman and lobbyist are not likely to be our readers' interest. WP:LAYOUT looks good, except that you may wish to move his autobiography into a "works" or "publications" section, since it doesn't appear to have been a source for this article. Otherwise, this is good.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    I am concerned that you often go into too much detail. The specifics of particular accusations raised in a campaign do not need to be recounted in their entirety. However, in general this is pretty good.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good luck with this -- the article is very good, but could use some touchup on the prose and the narrative style. RayTalk 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the review. I improved the lead, put in subsections and broke up a few sentences. As for the detail in the reelection, I thought it useful to illustrate how bitter the campaign was. If you think I should change more and remove parts of the campaign and pull apart more sentences could you please give me some guidance on where you think it's necessary? Thanks again. Hekerui (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the new lead and stuff is useful, but I'm still doubtful about the prose. Since I'm new to this, I'm asking for a second opinion on it. Cheers, RayTalk 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion by Philcha (talk)[edit]

Hi, Ray asked at WP:GAN ofr a 2nd oopinion, here's mine.

I'll assume the referencing has already been checked and there are no serious issues. ---Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

  • Green tickYIMO, for what it's worth, there's too much about details of primary votes and opinion polls in election campaigns.
    I looked at other articles, such as Hillary Clinton's, Hilda Solis' etc. and they use voting results. He is a politician, I think his campaigns matter.
the other American pol articles you mentioned also go into great detail about elections including primaries, so I guess that's just the way Americans like their politics. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTOH there are a few gaps:
    • How did he go from being a teenage unwed father by 2 girls to a Baptist minister?
      I don't understand, because I wrote what happened in between. Please clarify.
      • Was Watts a practising Christian when he became an unwed teenage father of 2 by different girls? If not, how did he become a Christian? --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW Date of the first 2 kids and of his marriage would help. Is he still married to Frankie Watts née Jones? --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        His wife and kids are in his infobox and why he is a Christian minister and had kids as a teenager is not explained but his father was a minister and the United States have a statistically significant number of teenage pregnancies. But I don't think speculations like that belong into the article. I haven't read his own account, but autobiographies tend to be soft-focus anyway.
        • this says Watts was preaching while he was college QB. I think you need to show a bit more determination in your research. This entry also says he went pro in Canada becuase he preferred their more open style of play - since you admit you know nothing of American football, ask me about anything you don't understand in this item.--Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like a bit more about his switch from Dem to Rep in 1989. As presented at the moment it looks like simple pique at not being supported strongly by the Dems. Was there more to it? Did no-one make an issue of it at the time, or in any of his later campaigns? - especially as he called himself a "devoted conservative". Any comments from active Dems in his family? --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      He was called a "devoted conservative" by the New York Times. I didn't find anyone making it an issue, just as his broken pledge was only mentioned incidentally. In the LA Times story his father says "A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Col. Sanders," but I'm not sure that needs to be in the article. I wrote his family was affiliated with the party and the older men worked for it and the NAACP.
      • To me this switch and the apparently muted reaction to it is more important than the voting stats in elections Watts contested. It may be a culture thing - I'ma Brit, and our sports commentators don't reduce everythings to %s. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not found/read any opinion pieces by insiders of his campaign. Hekerui (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • a source already cited explains the switch as a process that started while he was a student. Julius Caesar Watts Jr also helps, and commments, "There were many prominent blacks in the Democratic Party, but he was a novelty for the Republicans." (got it by googling for "Julius Caesar Watts") You might re-check them for answers to other points, e.g. wife and kids. I've reviewed other articles where editors missed some good stuff in sources they already had. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • this gives criticism from Watts' uncle Wade (? the same one who raised Watt's other out-of-marriage kid? compare w the other sources). You need to make friends w Google. It occurs to me since you're in Germany you may be getting a different selection from Google. If I type "www.google.com" into my browser, Google gives me www.google.co.uk. But if I type "www.google.de", I get German Google. Perhaps you should try asking for English language editions of Google, e.g. www.google.co.uk (UK) or www.google.ca (Canada; which I can also get if I specifically ask for it). I suggest you start here, as I've checked the previous search results. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Nothing about his family life, e.g. any more kids? --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that he has six kids and his family stayed in Oklahoma while he was in Congress.
I see, the infobox says 6 kids. The cited source, Republicans slam Stark for war comments, also implies that all but one were by Frankie. You might like to slip in somewhere the fact that he had another 4 with Frankie after their marriage - religion and family issues seem to play an even bigger psrt in the USA than in UK, so I think it's significant that, despite his teenage escapades, he's now a model of respectability. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I covered that his family was left in Oklahoma but I don't have any birthdates etc. so I'm not sure whether to include more than the information I have.
Fair enough. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

  • The titles of and allocations of topics to sub-sections of section "U.S. House of Representatives" looks odd to me. I'd make the sub-sections:
  • "Election campaigns" covering 1994, 1998
  • Record in office", covering policies and causes he supported, committee memberships & other posts, and any controversies arising from any of these.
  • Retirement from Congress" --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to go chronologically.
Sometimes one appproach is best, sometimes another. As far as I can see the article gives no hint that Watts make any significant changes in his policy statements. If he had, it would have been interesting to see whether they had any connection to any of his election campaigns, e.g. to position himself better against specific opponents - the impression Brits get is that a lot of US politicians pitch the primary campaigns to the party faithful and the main campaigns to the swing voters. My impression of Watts, if I've got it right, is of a consistent right-wing conservative except in his urging the Reps to reach out more to black voters - but against handouts that create dependency.--Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you read that correctly from the article.

Prose[edit]

  • Re section "Early life and career":
    •  Done looks like it was written by a different editor from the rest of the article, as its sentences are rather short. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now probably as good as it's going to get, since artificially combining sentences about different aspects of his life would be worse. --Philcha (talk)
    •  Done has a long run of "He did X" then a long run of "Watts did X". --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's mixed.
      • Look at the first half of the first para - I accept that the 2nd half is more mixed. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to have fixed it pretty well - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • should it be "Eufaula High school" (cap H & S)? -Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes.
      • I see you've fixed it, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think several political terms should be explained for the benefit of non-US readers. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm non-US myself lol but I'm not sure which ones you mean.
      • Any that are specific to USA.
      • BTW I assume from you user page that you're a German, correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I would never have guessed it from your written English, you have my respect! Why's a German so interested in US politics? --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm I think I linked enough. BTW I am German! :) I've never been to America but I have some friends there.
  • OTOH the use of wikilinks looks pretty good - with a few exceptions, e.g. Baptist abortion. Please check all terms relating to political processes, offices and issues.--Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked abortion and defense spending, but Baptist is linked okay, Baptism exists as well but Baptist has its own article. Other than that I think it's linked okay, or not?
    • How often to link appears to differ between sub-communities on en.WP. I learned my habits on chess artciles, where the norm is to link the first occurence per section - then I had to explain this to the reviewer at Talk:Ctenophore/GA1 :-) I'd like to see it linked at least once in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Other good politician articles are similar.
  • The account of his political statements is just an unstructured list, and I'd group them by theme, e.g. race (inluding the Confederate flag and "race-hustling poverty pimps"), welfare ("race-hustling poverty pimps" is on the border between these 2), taxes, criminal justice, etc. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it chronologically and put it together with his evolving office.
    • That might work if there was any examination of how his opinions evolved, but I don't see that there is. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      His opinions didn't evolve that much, he just got a record over time and I tried to reflect that.
      • If the chrono order of his policy statements made a difference, e.g his opinion or presentation changed becuase of some event I'd do it that way, but there's no sign of that. I thii a theme-based summary would be easier to read in this case. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Should be revised & reviewed when other issues are resolved, as the lead is meant to summarise the main text. -Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • Reasonable number, and no obvious copyright problems. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find any that are not people shots, e.g. the logo of his lobbying and consulting firm? Or
    I included his company logo.
    • Thanks, the FUR also looks fine. I can't think of any other non-headshot image that would be appropriate. --Philcha (talk)

Overall impression[edit]

I think this is just a whisker short of GA. The only issues I've raised that require research are Watts' becoming a Baptist minister, his switch of party, and his family life. The rest of the issues are just polishing up. I hope this will be a clear GA in about 2 weeks. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the suggestions, I responded. Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

Nothing big, migh go in the bottom under "Further reading" / "External links": --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 2nd opinion by TonyTheTiger (talk)[edit]

Hi, Ray asked at WP:GAN for a 2nd opinion, I see one above, so I will make mine brief.

I am a big sports fan and have experience with athlete articles. I believe a good article could be written just about his athletic career and am quite disappointed in the relative brevity of the athletic career coverage. I would like to see greater detail of sports career coverage although I realize 1970s research is much harder than the 1990s and 2000s research that is covered in more sufficient breadth and depth for my taste. Currently only half of a paragraph covers athletics. Actually that paragraph should be split out. Since Watts was a quarterback, there should be a lot to write about. Since quarterbacks get a disproportionate amount of secondary source coverage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an American football game, don't know the rules, have heard of "quarterbacks" but that's it - I just wrote together what I read about his sports career and would have a hard time writing together much more about that :( Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of review[edit]

The nominator has removed the nomination from WP:GAN and added the "failed GA" template at the top of Talk:J. C. Watts. The article would have failed if the following gaps in coverage were not resolved:

  • How Watts moved from teenage father of 2 babies by different tirls to Baptist minister.
  • Reasons for Watts' switch from Democrat to Republican, and the reaction of others to this, including his familiy (see next).
  • The fact that his uncle Wade Watts, as well as raising one of J.C. Watt's children, was a famous civil rights campaigner and commited supporter of the Democrats.

See several comments dated 15:15, 18 April 2009 - most give sources, one also gives a Google search. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first reviewer removed his/her name from the review so I thought it failed and I finished it off. Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove my name from the review; I put it up for a second opinion. I didn't remove my name from the page until after the nomination was withdrawn. That said, I agree with and thank Philcha for his points. I would add the following point:

  • The narrative style in the early life section is a little too disjointed and hurried to be considered good prose. That too would need to be corrected before this article is put up for GA again.

Best of luck; this is generally a fairly good article, but I think Hekerui was correct to withdraw the nomination, as these gaps are likely to take more than a week to correct. RayTalk 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't withdraw anything. Hekerui (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh. I had left the nom open w/o further comments because I was expecting changes to the article. Well, no matter. Good luck with the article. RayTalk 10:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._C._Watts/GA1&oldid=286204037"