George H. W. Bush broccoli comments has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 28, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bush family (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from George H. W. Bush broccoli comments appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 January 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that George H. W. Bush hated broccoli so much that he banned it from Air Force One? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George H. W. Bush broccoli comments.

I have concerns whether this topic is notable, it seems like WP:TRIVIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is trivial or a silly topic to write about, it has much more media coverage in reliable sources than I expected. Even few books discuss about this topic, so it is definitely notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second that this doesn't seem notable. Just because there's coverage of it doesn't mean that it warrants an article in an encyclopedia (there's a presumption of notability, but not a guarantee). In my opinion, this page should be deleted, and any useful information should be incorporated into related articles. Ramzuiv (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter wasn't even invented for over a decade after Bush left office, so it's weird to say he was tweeting "after [he] left office." Fyndegil (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyndegil – Yeah, I noticed that and had intended to change it. But the only instance I was able to find was in a tweet ... but now I have rephrased it to avoid this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:George H. W. Bush broccoli comments/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kavyansh.Singh . I have reviewed this page. Kpddg (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 17, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not Pass Main Issue - repetitve (the quote where he says 'I dont like brocolli', etc; short article

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Ok

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Kpddg (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there should be a second opinion for this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No real opinion, but the fact that "short article" is cited as a reason to fail and "broad in coverage" is passed is a little fishy... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been renominated. Open for another - experienced - reviewer to take a second look --Whiteguru (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being renominated, I have reopened this original review for a second opinion from someone fully familiar with the GA criteria and how to apply them—please take a full look at the article and do a complete new review of it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'll be giving a second review of this nomination. Comments should be completed within a week. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• George W. Bush, the son of George H. W. Bush mentioned his father's dislike of broccoli in a eulogy at his father's funeral. There should be a comma after George H. W. Bush, but I'd honestly recommend rewriting it as "Bush's son, George W. Bush, mentioned ..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Shortly after, a journalist from U.S. News & World Report broke a story stating that Bush had banned broccoli from Air Force One. This admittedly comes from the feeling of "politics is a huge joke combined with a spectator sport pretending to be important" that this article is giving me, but please, don't call anything in this article "breaking news" journalism.
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bush's anti-broccoli comments did not go down well with the farming community of the United States. "go down" is colloquial—I'd recommend "were received poorly"
  • Sure. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Many parents, who were trying to get their children to eat vegetables insert comma at the end there
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bush's thyroid condition, later announced to be Graves' disease led many Americans to write letters to Bush, insisting he eat more broccoli due to its health benefits. insert comma after "Grave's disease"
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore, wives of the Democratic nominee Bill Clinton and Al Gore were seen holding a sign which stated: "Let's put broccoli in the White House again". → Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore, wives of Democratic nominees for President and Vice President Bill Clinton and Al Gore,
  • Okay, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bush's comments on broccoli, along with his later vomiting incident (during which he vomited on the Prime Minister of Japan, Kiichi Miyazawa, after a bout of the 24-hour flu) were seen as examples of Bush's tendency for political gaffes. → Bush's comments on broccoli, along with an incident in which he vomited on the Prime Minister of Japan, Kiichi Miyazawa, were seen as examples of Bush's tendency for political gaffes.
  • Fine, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• joked that the workers in the Office of Personnel Management would get merit pay "in broccoli". Should be rephrased somehow—too close to the original source for my comfort
  • That is a case of WP:LIMITED – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• owned a substantial broccoli farm rephrase, too close of a paraphrase
  • I just removed it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bush hosted a state dinner to honor Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the prime minister of Poland too close of a paraphrase
  • That is a case of WP:LIMITED. Few terms in this sentence like 'Bush', 'state dinner', 'Tadeusz Mazowiecki', and 'prime minister of Poland', are something which I cannot rephrase. And it virtually makes up the entire sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As a general note about comma usage: sometimes you use commas like parentheses—in that case, you want to have two commas to "close" the parentheses. For example:
  • I went to the volcano, miniature canoe in hand, looking for a decent pint of seltzer.
  • You could write that as I went to the volcano (miniature canoe in hand) looking for a decent pint of seltzer.
  • In essence, you want to make sure that your sentence would still be valid if you remove everything in between parenthetical commas: I went to the volcano looking for a decent pint of seltzer. So, when you have those parenthetical clauses, imagine wrapping it with a parentheses instead, or dashes. That's where you'll put both commas.
    • Got it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The L. A. Times source doesn't appear to support the middle initial of Dunlop's name.
  • Oh, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Smart Politics source doesn't hedge on the 70 mentions, it says exactly seventy. you could say something like "Smart Politics recorded seventy instances where Bush..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see support for the parental dissatisfaction sentence in the Gettysburg Times article
  • After searching a lot, I realized that this was in the article before I started re-formatting the article (see). As the sources (and many other) doesn't support it, I've removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Where is These remarks were immediately compared to those of Bush. supported in the Washington Post citation?
  • It was cited in the ABC news one. Now shifted it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Times' source is cutting off, so AGF on the "lying to children" bit
  • If you want the primary source to verify it, here is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Independent doesn't seem to support the junk food from Obama claim.
  • But the Reuters citation just adjacent to it does verify it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Wired magazine reliable for politics?
  • The content supported by the Wired magazine citation is also supported by The Independent source citation. No opinion on the reliability of the magazine on a wider aspect, but this particular piece is just fine. But I can remove it if you insist. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• One more: I don't think this piece from The Guardian actually supports the idea that the farming community didn't take it well—it seems more like taken-for-granted speculation, which isn't the most solid assertion.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There should probably be a mention of the length of haitch double-yuh's presidency
  • Done. but it took me quite a while to understand! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, that Barbara Bush is George's wife
  • She is already mentioned as the "First-lady" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ABC News's Liz Neporent said that broccoli "has long been a political vegetable". I'm not sure what this sentence is doing in the middle of Obama's story—what's its relevance?
  • Shifted it away from Obama. It is relevant as it is related with the topic (but I can't really explain how). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Most importantly, the final paragraph in the comments section is a little bit of a meandering grab-bag—if some of those could be different paragraphs, or even under new headings, that'd be helpful. There's a lot of sentences in this paragraph that feel like they could be summary topics of their own paragraph. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get that. The overall article may be short, but for an topic like this, I don't expect anything missing. Of-course, if you see anything missing, feel free to mention and I'll work on it. But, currently, the article cites all major newspapers articles and even books which cover this incident. The other sources I find did not have anything unique other than what this article already has. In my opinion, if I expand the last para of "Comments and analysis" section, it might make the article a bit off-topic (WP:GA?#3b). Let me know if I am misinterpreting your suggestion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kavyansh.Singh: Well, I'll ping SL93 here if they want to weigh in, but I think that the section kind of mixes in reaction with subsequent events in a way that makes the text flow jerkily. It does touch on enough things, I don't see any topics missing, per se, but I feel like a lot of it could use more context to effectively address the major aspects in detail. Like, when did Bush do that number with poland, and why? Just how popular was broccoli, and was it a sudden thing or a buildup? What really happened in that debate over Bush's eating habits—was it just a lot of criticism? Did something come out of that debate? Who was on what side? What was it that Bush occasionally said about broccoli in his later years?

    In other words, I think that while a lot of important events in the story are touched on here, I think that you're kind of skating over them. I'm not looking for comprehensiveness, and you don't need to go in-depth about every incident. But where it's important, I'd like it the article to be less of a grab bag—take one or two important events in the aftermath and spruce that up, give things a little more context, and we'd be golden there.

    By the way, you could probably put a ((tweet)) or two in last section to spruce up the image requirement—I particularly like this one from Bush. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, so I tried it once again. Added some background details on "vegetable of the 80s", consumption of broccoli, broccoli's growth in California, impact of his comments on market, added the tweet (thanks for that, it look really good!), re-arranged the text, misc. As to other questions above, the sources do not discuss it. Without sources, I can't add more context. I scanned through various sources and websites, but there I am unable to find any reliable source supporting other claims. Do you have any particular source in mind which answers some/all of the above questions. Rest, I'll do whatever I can. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      @Kavyansh.Singh: nice job, that's exactly what I'm looking for! Just a couple more suggestions:

      • I think the bit about broccoli as a political vegetable would do better in the section about broccoli's increasing popularity, instead of hanging out at the back there.
        • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a bit more room for expansion in the broccoli sale jump if you want, because "increased by 10%" is a little vague. Something like: Broccoli saw an increase in popularity following Bush's comments, with the sale of broccoli rising 10 percent. One supermarket sales director quipped to the Los Angeles Times that "Broccoli has never enjoyed so much publicity".
        • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        (The % should be changed to 'percent' either way) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • I think we are good as long as '%' is consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass-adena!

Than Kyun – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pass-ifier :)

Than Uyên – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that there's not more images, but illustration isn't a requirement and all the images are relevant. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Actually, if you could take an image from the C-SPAN video (should be public domain, no? If not, it's definitely fair use), that'd work splendidly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this video? The copy-right status is unknown, we'll need to assume it as a non-free media. And I doubt whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job, Kavyansh! There's a lot of little things to hammer out, but I think my main issue so far is that this feels a little small. There's definitely room for expansion here, and I'd want to see a bit more on specific incidents and background trends, possibly in their own paragraphs. Overall, this is going great! I'm going to put this  On hold while we work this out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Theleekycauldron – Thanks for reviewing it! I have taken care of all the points, or replied above. As to the broadness criteria, as i said above, I'm not very-sure if the article is a short one, but would appreciate your feedback! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, give me few hours, I'll try to expand the article (I got something!) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron – I think I have fixed the issues, and have tried to expand the article as well. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I responded in the broadness section above, this'll take some haggling... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

All righty, Kavyansh, that's a Pass!

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks! Still can't believe we have an entire article on Bush hating broccoli! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if we had asked bush in 1995 whether he'd rather eat broccoli for every meal for the rest of his life, or live under a democratic president for the rest of his life, i legitimately have no idea which one he'd pick, reading this—he hated broccoli with a passion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read article, doesn’t take long to see this 75.80.50.188 (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the lead section of the article. Refer to MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:LEAD – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]