Wikipedia:Peer review/George W. Bush/archive2

George W. Bush[edit]

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

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. Tito xd^(?!?) 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]

Old PR[edit]

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]

ARCHIVED!

New PR comment[edit]

I think that George W. Bush article should be featured.It is very well written and informative already. And vandalism is not a reason it should not be.sasha_best

See WP:WIAFA: 2.e "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This article will not become featured in the near future, but it can be improved to a more neutral point of view.

Now, onto the actual discussion about the article...

Check all the links. There are some duplicates, and some are pointing to disambiguation pages.
Verify that the images qualify as fair use; I'm not sure Image:Indy cover 22 july 2006.jpg qualifies with the way it has been included.
There are two references made as regular links, unlike the other refs in the articles. The first of those two isn't linking to the actual page with the information, but to the general source itself.

And finally, it could use a copyedit and more sourcing. For example, take a look at the first paragraph of "Domestic agenda." I think that explains itself. ♠ SG →Talk 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are a lot of citation needed statements that need to be fixed. ♠ SG →Talk 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is excellent, and vandalsim shouldn't be a problem with the page being semi-protected. 0L1 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured status in asturian wikipedia[edit]

Criticism and public perception[edit]

Bush's leadership on national security and for his war on terrorism following 9/11 have won him emotional support from a large number of Americans,, but he lost most of it because of the US soldiers killed in the Irak-war. Bush has also enjoyed strong personal and working relationships with foreign leaders, but had severe problems with Gerhard Schröder and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and other foreign leaders opposing the Irak-war. If this paragraph is called Criticism it has to critizise at the points even if they are obvious!--Stone 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of POV issues[edit]

In the 3rd paragraph, it discusses partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives. These are sensitive subjects, and furthermore, Bush spent very little time on them. How about energy policy? Patriot Act? Promotion of democracy? Social security reform? Reorganizing our government around fighting a war on terror? Bush signed the PBA ban because Clinton vetoed twice. If Clinton had signed it, Bush would have not. It was an issue before Bush came to office, and this context is relevant, and why it should be removed from the 3rd paragraph.

In the Katrina section, no blame is given for the poor levies, and for the weak response by the mayor and the governor. From reading it, you would think it was all Bush's fault. Also, Michael Brown had overseen a number of disasters before, but no one had criticized them.

The environmental policy section leaves out the fact that the Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0 before Bush got into office. Bush formally withdrew, and is blamed for its demise, but it was a dead duck already. This context is relevant.

There is no mention of Bush re-organizing the US gov't to fight terrorism. The patriot act is mentioned in passing in one place, and the other time it is used to criticize bush for 'perceived excesses.' No explanation of what those excesses were.

In other words, I think the article sucks right now.KeithCu 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]