Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1

Tom DeLay

This is a neutral, stable, referenced article about a very controversial politician. I'd like to bring it up to FA status, and I think that this peer review will prove necessary for such an attempt to succeed. Please point out any POV statements, gaping holes in coverage, or other errors or shortcomings. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at it and just had to edit a few things in the first few paragraphs... the sentences were perhaps technically grammatically correct, but they were very long sentences. I didn't read too far past that, maybe will come back when I have a moment.

I'd also say that to me, the first few paragraphs had a distinctively negative slant. I'd qualify that by saying that I don't know all the details of DeLay's pre-US Congress life, but it appeared that most of the facts were drawn from one source (the "Absolute Truth" source)... better perspective might come from consulting other sources, including even sympathetic sources. KWH 04:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the first section of the body. You've made a distinct improvement. Please read the rest, and please edit anything that you think really needs fixing. Not everything in that section was from the "Absolute Truth" article, but after another read-through, you're right that it does depend pretty heavily on that source. I'll try to find other reliable sources for that period of his life, and synthesize any differing points of view without dwelling on any one part of that period more closely than the lesser importance of that period of his life merits. NatusRoma | Talk 06:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice article but the pic is of very low quality. American Patriot 1776 13:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Biography and Early Political Career section. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First glance: I notice that there are absolutely no sources for any of the claims in the intro section. Are these claims reiterated and sourced later? It's best practise to source a claim the first time it is introduced. Or are the claims unsourced entirely? I also agree with Kwh: anything notable enough to be included ought to be mentioned by multiple sources. If multiple sources can't be found for something, it's probably not notable. Kasreyn 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, the intro section is way too long. Try trimming it down to one to two paragraphs of "summary" type information, and move the rest "below the fold" to various sections in the main body. The intro area should be a quick summary and outline of the article. Kasreyn 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. You're right, things introduced in the lead are sourced in the body. I have read featured article nominations where this was preferred. Most of the statements in the article are attested by multiple sources, but for brevity's sake (there are already nearly 70 distinct sources cited) I have generally only included one reference per piece of information. Is there anything in particular that you don't think is notable enough to remain in the article? Also, I'll take a whack at the lead. It's hard to keep things brief with a subject who's currently under indictment, but I'll do some culling. NatusRoma | Talk 03:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've cut the lead down to three paragraphs. Does it seem better now? If you think that there's still too much detail in the lead, is there anything in particular that you would suggest taking out? NatusRoma | Talk 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Better, but I still think it's too long. A lot of the information could easily be "below the fold". I'm not an admin and I'm not involved in the decision-making process for what gets to be FA, but if I were, brevity of intro section would be one of my criteria. After all, I'm not proposing any information at all be deleted - just moved down the page a bit for appearance and readability's sake. I'm sure you're concerned that your edits may upset some of the article's longtime editors, but surely when they see that nothing is deleted, merely moved elsewhere in the article, they'll understand.
  • Specifically? Hmm. The first sentence is a great. In a pinch, it could be the entire intro section by itself. But that might be too short. So I'd include the sentences on his elected offices from para 2, possibly the "Hammer" bit, definitely the K Street thing since that's one of his major claims to fame. Most of the rest of it, in my opinion, can afford to be moved down into the main body. However, it might also be good to cover his eventual disgrace and notice of resignation in the intro as well. This would provide a pretty apt summary of the article: rise and fall in two paragraphs or so. What do you think? Kasreyn 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think that some recentism is justified given that the legal proceedings are currently the most salient element of DeLay's life. In time, much of the third paragraph of the lead ought to be removed, but I would prefer to keep most of it for now. If there's something that you think really doesn't belong, please go ahead and remove it. NatusRoma | Talk 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Also, do you have any suggestions about the body? NatusRoma | Talk 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldnt the "Accusations of misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments" section be titled "Investigation of misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the section shouldn't just be about random investigations but the official investigation. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. I have changed the heading to "Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments". NatusRoma | Talk 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)