Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

Jack Kemp

I'm nominating this article for featured article because. I have spent the last month and a half cleaning up the article (that looked like this) by reading all 368 articles that show in the Time magazine search for Jack Kemp and the first 130 articles in the New York Times search. I have attempted to be as neutral as these sources are by including both the positives and negatives from these sources. Two lingering issues remain from the WP:GA promotion process:

  1. There is some concern about the article's length, but I noted in the WP:GAC nomination page that a WP:FA could be written about either his football or his political career. Thus, a single unified biography will be lenghty. I also compared the article to several other by starting at the top and hitting page down until I got to the footnotes. On my current screen it took seven times for Kemp. This is shorter than several other important national figures: Reagan -10 although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet, Clinton, H. -10, Bush, G.W. -11, Clinton, B. -10, Stephen Harper -9, Rice, C. -12, McCain -8, Grover Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-9, Ford -10, Emma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely) -10, Roosevelt, F. -13, Roosevelt, T. -15.
  2. There is an issue on where the opinions on Soccer belong. I initial had this as a separate section. To pass GA I moved it. An uninvolved editor stated that he felt the original placement was better.

I think the article is extensive. I have not exhausted good neutral sources of information if more detail is desired. His Newsweek search has 111 results and I have only used one. His New York Times search had thousands of articles and I only used the first 130. However, all articles are works in progress and I think I have done enough that it should be considered fairly complete. However, part of the reason his article is shorter than others is his article is sparse on images. I do think this article is ready for review. However, as with all important politicians it is impossible to make everyone happy as far as Neutrality goes. I welcome stylistic suggestions and stand ready to respond to all commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that for the football section, I went to the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library and found a few Buffalo Bills Books and American Football League books that are not likely to be found in too many Libraries outside of Western New York.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question it gives the dates he was "in office" as the 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee - is the position generally regarded as an office? Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I think you are really asking does this belong in an infobox rather than is it an office. It is not an office as I understand it. However, I am not sure what is proper for the infobox. It is the highest position he held. I have noticed templates and succession boxes for the position. I do not know whether it is Kosher to include it in an infobox of a WP:FA. Guidance is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking at the succession boxes for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford it is an office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the websites show up as dead links with the link checking tool. Quite a few, so I'm not going to list them. Please double check them?
    The five Time magazine links are good and the four New York Times links are good. I removed the fact reffed by the tenth and final link which is in fact dead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, i'd seriously consider splitting the article in two parts at least. Prose size is 101KB by my little tool. That's pretty hefty. And I gotta admit that checking 207 refs isn't exactly making my night here...
    As I stated in the nomination, the article is shorter than many other GA's and FA's of important political figures. Kemp is that small minority of articles where the standard 100 KB limit is jsut a guide and not a clear limit. As mentioned on the Kemp talk page shortening for the sake of shortening is not really a good idea. If it gets much longer forking articles might be O.K. I don't really think there is so much heft to anything here that taking stuff out to put it in a forked article would be an improvement. By my page down count I would stand by a single unified article at anything ten pages or less.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the consensus that http://www.databasefootball.com/index.htm was a reliable source?
    At the Tyrone Wheatley FAC www.pro-football-reference.com (PFR) and www.databasefootball.com (DBF) became an issue. On his talk page specific issues were presented and at the FAC PFR was deemed to be credible. No determination was made about DBF. I replaced as many PFRs with NFL refs and we agreed to stand by the remaining refs. In my personal experience, PFR is probably preferable to DBF. I will swap out DBF for PRF since I can not find what we need at the NFL site.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php? ? (On this one, the front page solicits articles, which makes my RS meter twitch)
    I have removed that text although I wish there was a WP:RS secondary source documenting the greatest Division III quarterbacks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, these two sites http://www.creativequotations.com/tqs/tq-football.htm and http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jack_kemp/ what makes them reliable?
    Switched to NYTimes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.amazon.com/Esquire-October-24-1978/dp/B000FVY334/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=miscellaneous&qid=1203881351&sr=8-14 is a listing by a seller and may not be reliable for the information contained within the magazine issue.
    I added a second ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • current ref 88 (Kemp, Jack An American Idea) needs to be formatted like the other books and needs a page number for the citation.
    The rest of the cites are to online magazine and newpaper articles (using {{cite web}}) for the most part. This is was a pamphlet of some sort as I recall. It was not a book with an ISBN or I would have used {{cite book}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.. I've lost it in the references (laughs). Oh, it's 93 now. It just needs the title italicized. Is Goodrich the publisher? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are the publisher and I have italicized it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me why http://www.townhall.com/ is a reliable source?
    WP:RS is an argument about secondary sources that we cite as a tertiary resource. In this case townhall.com is a primary source. It is in fact what he wrote. There is no need to quibble about opinions about whether we believe he wrote it. I believe townhall would pass for a valid secondary source on a political issue if it were the only source of such information. However, this biography is generally sourced from Time magazine and the New York Times. The argument with the soccer section is whether the secondary sources like Slate magazine and Harvard are RSs. I think they are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I am understanding your reply here, the townhall site is just repeating an interview? Or does Kemp submit the information to Townhall which prints it verbatim? I REALLY do not pay attention to political causes or websites, so I'm clueless on how they work. Educate me. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In his story the byline says Jack Kemp. I.E., he is the author of a published opinion. This is different than him writing a web page because this opinion is a part of an ongoing controversy. Posting the opinion here is almost the same as posting it in the New York Times op-ed as far as admissibility to WP goes. It is a primary source however and one that only enters WP if there is relevant secondary commentary. I.E., WP does not generally serve as secondary resource for primary sources but rather as a tertiary resource on secondary sources. This piece becomes relevant if the commentary on it in WP:RS is encyclopedic as is the case here. This is a twenty year ongoing controversy of sorts and he decided to rip open the scar tissue for renewed probing of the matter. Since we can present the case that the renewed continuation of the controversy is encyclopedic it does not matter whether he posts it in the NYT or as graffiti or on his web site. If Barry Bonds wrote something on his web cite about his opinion why he has not been signed WP should not describe it as encyclopedic. However, as would surely happen when secondary commentary discusses his opinion both his opinion and the secondary commentary become jointly encyclopedic. It would be impossible for us to discuss the renewed commentary without saying what Kemp said. Townhall is what Kemp said to renew debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He championed several Chicago school and supply side economics issues: economic growth, free markets, free trade, tax simplification and lower tax rates on both work and investment. " is sourced to http://www.kemppartners.com/principals-jk1.htm, which is Kemp's consulting firm. Would be better sourced to a third-party source
    With so many articles in that paragraph summarizing his positions, I doubt anyone would really question if these are his positions who even reads only that paragraph. If you feel that particular sentence needs to have a backup citation from a WP:RS, I will reread the refs for the rest of the paragraph and find one. Do you think that is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this up for other folks to weigh in on. I lean towards it being an okay source, but borderline. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 76 needs a page number and publisher information (Jack Kemp An American Renaissance) and so does current ref 77 (Robert Bartley The Seven Fat Years)
    These refs predate my involvement in the article. They would be more useful with page numbers, but I last saw the American Renaissance book when I was in Buffalo and did not read it. I could probably get my hands on the book in Chicago, but then I would have to read the whole thing until I came up with a page. I know nothing about the other book. Let me know how essential the page numbers are in this context.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are really not negotiable. They are part of WP:V and WP:CITE. Since this is a BLP and a political figure, we need to be especially careful with sources and citing things. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put this in context. I came to a 12.1KB article that had four help needed banners on it and that was lightly cited. I beefed it up to a 121 KB article that has citations everywhere. The 10% that I did not write has a couple of citations that are inline, but to whole books not pages. I have been on your side of this debate in the past (See Edward Teller's WP:FAR). On my 90% you can fairly hold me to new WP:FAC standards, but on the 10% that is not mine I think the slightly lower WP:FAR standards on extant text may apply. This is where we call on User:SandyGeorgia and other experts. In general, it is always significantly harder to properly cite another authors work than your own. Put a {{fact}} tag on anything I added and I think it would be fair for me to undertake citing it. However, the other stuff just comes along for the ride, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are sourcing this statement "These tax cuts have been attributed for the economic growth from 1983 to 1990, the then largest peacetime expansion of the United States GDP.", they are both on that one sentence. Any chance there is some article out there on the web that covers this? I can see where you are coming from, I've been there in the past, but on the other hand, it is a statement that is likely to be challenged, and it should be verifiable, which means page numbers. I'll leave this discussion up here for others to judge for themselves, or help out as the case may be. Myself, I'm willing to defer to someone else's judgement on this one. (Give me a bishop any day!) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am about to pop my DVD in before I call it a day. However, you did call my attention to some shoddy grammar. S/B either
  • These tax cuts have been credited for the economic growth from 1983 to 1990,. . .
  • or The economic growth from 1983 to 1990 is attributed to these tax cuts,. . .
Since the latter would require reconstruction of the rest of the sentence and the former would only need a little tinkering with the rest of the sentence I went with the former.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added one ref. I am not sure if this is enought for you. Let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit uncomfortable with two books without page numbers referencing "the then largest peacetime expansion of the United States GDP." I'll leave it up for other folks to decide on, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double check the web link tool and fix the ones that are deadlinked. Otherwise everything looks pretty good as far as sourcing and links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:JKBrooks85

Comments

  • There's only a passing mention of Kemp's collegiate football career at Occidental College. Considering that he later went on to become a professional football player, do you think that a section on his time in college football would be worhtwhile?
    I have found a few things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions Louis Farrakhan as being anti-Semitic (Vice Presidential Campaign section); I'd suggest altering that slightly, as Farrakhan himself has never claimed to be such, though there is a public perception that he is.
    reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with the length of the article.
  • As stated above, I'd check the dead link tool one more time.
    Wow, I did not realize the list changed like the weather. O.K. this time only four New York Times articles and a fifth article showed up. This time two fo the four NYT articles are good. The other two point to articles that now require a subscription. However, online membership access is free. Thus, these two are still good. However, now a new problem article showed up. The article at drafthistory.com has a wierd archive that changes. I guess it is a blog and when he adds new stuff at the top everything below shifts. A page that was on page 26 before is now on page 27 as new stuff has been added to page 1. The story makes a point about the Kemp and Ken Anderson being the best Division III football players that have ever been drafted. The article is not so important to the article and contains an opinion not stated in any other WP:RS that I can find although it is quite believable. I will try to research the point a little better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the reference to Ken Anderson for now. If I find any articles about great Division III quarterbacks, I will readd the info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good article overall, and once my comments are addressed, I'd be happy to give my support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I rearranged the early life section slightly in order to get the athletics and academics sections together. You probably don't need to consult the link checker all the time — I had just noticed that there was a missing link in there that hadn't been addressed before. Good stuff all around. It's a coherent, understandable, and complete article. There are ample citations, and as far as I can tell, it seems to be a good biography article worthy of being featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I get an opinion on whether NFL fan club team history websites count as WP:RS for WP. In particular can I use http://www.billsbackers.com/JackKemp.htm and http://www.billsbackers.com/CookieGilchrist.htm ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine the main thing to be cautious about is the fact that the site seems to be asking for articles and that the guy who wrote that article in particular doesn't claim any qualifications beyond being a lifelong Bills fan. I don't think that's bad ... just that it probably doesn't stand on its own because of that. If you could find a source that backs up the source, it might work, but I'm not entirely sure how the red tape surrounding WP:RS works. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - wonderful improvement; this is what we want to see in a political biography. Amply referenced, clear, coherent, interesting. Biruitorul (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am glad to get some political support after getting responses from two editors that I know do a lot of sports related work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The prose is full of bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings. Can't possibly be promoted at present.

  • "Travelled"? US spelling, please.
  • "elective politics"—sounds like surgery. "Public life" would be better, if true. Otherwise, a different epithet.
  • "Kemp is the third of four sons to a father who was a trucking company owner." Um ... "born"? The rest of the sentence isn't the most elegant I've seen.
  • "the entrepreneurial outgrowth of a motorcycle messenger service."—Sounds like a tumour.
  • "His parents, Paul and Frances Kemp,[4] raised their sons in the Wilshire district of Los Angeles,[5] which was a heavily Jewish section of West Los Angeles.[4] He was raised in the Church of Christ, Scientist faith" Now we learn the names of the parents, after that clumsy first sentence in the "Youth" section. The readers will wonder why these two religions are foregrounded? Very abstruse.
    • These religions are foregrounded four reasons noted over the next five paragraphs and then a later political controversy. Keep reading. Usually a reviewer would say, the biography might be improved if you can add breadth like his religion and marital status. He married a woman who brogght him into another faith. This information should be in his personal section, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides." Bizarre wording. And the school seems to have become the them, not the person.
    • I am describing an unusual element of his background that I interpret to mean that he went to the type of high school that had tourist buses driving by with the guide pointing out the window saying that so and so went to high school here and such and such happened while Kemp was inside trying to learn about Thoreau. It is in fact the school I am describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The school is located on Melrose Avenue and its alumni include Herb Alpert, David Arquette, Lenny Kravitz, Ricardo Montalban, David Janssen, Timothy Hutton and Mickey Rooney.[8][9] Nonetheless, Kemp worked with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles where he learned to embrace diversity and hard work." Logical connection in "Nonetheless" eludes me completely. Seemingly unrelated ideas are jammed together into the one sentence. TONY (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am painting a picture that this guy 1)lived with rich Jewish kids, 2)went to school with rich Jewish Kids, many of whom became celebirities, and 3) somehow managed to maintain a very down to earth demeanor which placed value on hard work and social responsibility. We are looking at the formative years of a person who nearly achieved the highest offices in our country. To understand how he got so close you must understand his background. I will reconsider my statement to see if I am putting two and two together in ways that are beyond the purpose of WP, but I think I am serving the reader well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose way too much passive voice ... e.g. "considered a social moderate" by whom? writing is generally choppy. needs a review for neutral phrasing ... e.g. "roadblocks in Congress". basically needs a thorough copyediting job before promotion to featured. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • O.K. Choppiness and passive voice are actionable things I can address. I will give it my best over the next day or two. I apologize for the chopiness, but the Time magazine/New York Times research method has me read each article and add a sentence or two with a citation. Unfortunately, most sentences have been simple sentences. I will try to revise for flow in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WRT, social moderate, the lead is written in the uncited form where the important facts are cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Criterion three concerns. Certain FU images appear to have been added in response to a GA review that requested more images (which are not necessary for either GA or FA). The implication seems be that the author didn't really feel the images necessary to begin with and/or non-free inclusion criteria weren't fully considered.
  • Comment I was not quite sure what to do about User:Tony1's April 6th complaint that the article was troubled by "bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings" because the complaint did not give me much actionable guidance. User:elcobbola's subsequent April 8th complaint of choppiness and passive voice gave me grammatical changes to look for. I spent the whole day attempting to address the latter concerns in this regard and hope this might be what was necessary to converted both parties.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_Kemp/archive1&oldid=1088823143"