I am nominating this article is an excellent example of Wikipedia's excellence at comprehensibly treating a current event better than any other single source of information (paper encyclopedae and books will take longer to publish, shorter articles in the mass media are not as comprehensive). I've been waiting for the article to stabilize, which it now has -- despite it's inherently controversial nature, it has successfully coalesced by consensus. Great job to the many editors of this article. I recommend that it be featured as an example of how to write an article about a major breaking controversial news event. Thesmothete 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now: The references need to be cleaned up (yes, I know from experience that it can be tedious). You should go through the article and remove unnecessarily repetitive links–the nature of the article's creation means that various figures' names are often linked almost every time that they are mentioned. You should also remove superfluous references to people's offices (e.g., Kirk Fordham's position as chief of staff for Tom Reynolds), as well as superfluous use of first names. That's all for now. NatusRoma | Talk 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adjusted most of the first names/titles. Wikilinks remain for the moment. What do you mean about cleaning up the references? Thesmothete 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they mean using ((Cite web)) or other such referencing templates. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of the references have missing or misformatted tags (this is most often true of date tags, though some title tags have extra square brackets), and a few need ((cite news)) or ((cite web)) tags. NatusRoma | Talk 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to dig in and help you clean up the references, but I found that you've used the cite templates, which I personally hate, so I can't help. I can list some samples of problems (I always start at the bottom, since most people start at the top) - these are only samples:
- (Two authors are listed, should be added to cite template) "Istook aide to cooperate with inquiry", The Oklahoman Newspaper, 2006-10-06. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.
- (What is the October 8 date - this article was printed October 5, and authors are missing from cite template) "Legal Case Against Foley Could Be Tricky to Build", Los Angeles Times, 2006-10-08. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.
- Couldn't check NY Times refs, don't subscribe to that rag.
- (Why two Oct 5 dates? Your last access date of Oct 5 may be correct, but statement was made Oct 3.) ^ "Statement by Mark Foley's attorney, David Roth", ABC TV News, 2006-10-05. Retrieved on 2006-10-05.
- (They move article to archive - new link needed - didn't check info) "Explicit Net messages aren't a federal crime", Houston Chronicle/AP, 2006-10-05. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.
- (Associated Press needs to be added to cite template) "Foley Could Face State Charges", FoxNews.com, 2006-10-07. Retrieved on 2006-10-07.
- (Author, Lis Wiehl, needs to be added to cite template. Can't understand where two dates come from, as I can't find where publication date is listed on the article.) "Lis On Law: Jumping Through Legal Loopholes?", Fox News, 2006-10-17. Retrieved on 2006-10-17.
- (ref needs to be expanded from URL info only) ^ http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/foleys_former_c.html
- (Consistency in date links - this one is red, while the rest are linked - I personally don't link dates in refs, which I think is a waste of time, but I guess that's personal pref. Also, consistency in date format - this one is different from others.) "Hastert Accepts Responsibility for Foley Scandal, Won't Resign", Bloomberg News Service, October 5, 2006. Retrieved on October 8, 2006.
- (fix link) Wolf, Z. Byron. "Staffers Testify On Foley E-mails", ABC News, 2006-10-16. Retrieved on 2006-10-16.
- Sandy (Talk) 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: per above, plus the merge tag needs to be settled before FA. ALso, as an FA is to be stable, the current event nature of this needs to be settled before FA status. THere are also too many refs in the lead. A lead should summarize the article and hence should have few or no refs in it. Rlevse 03:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about the merge tag, but as for stability, this article is pretty stable now. It could take months or years to learn every significant fact related to the event, and, respectfully, I think that would defeat the opportunity to show how to write a great article under the pressure of real-time events. Or are we saying that a current event can never have FA status? Thesmothete 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The current event tag has been removed, we felt events are "no longer rapidly changing". BUt, if the tag is appropriate, the article is specifically ineligeble for FAC--but that's now a moot point in this article's case. Rlevse 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Article reads like a news report. This is not wikinews. We need to assume NPOV and document the scandal without assuming that Foley "did it". Kyaa the Catlord 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of the NPOV you are concerned about? Thesmothete 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ref #33 is broken and it is not next to another intact ref.--Rmky87 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like someone has already fixed that or in any event Ref #33 looks fine to me. Crust 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I was going to say first that I just think it's way too early to assume this article will remain stable as investigations are continuing (imagine what will happen after January when the leadership changes, for one thing), but then I looked at the article. While it's certainly been looked after well, it's not FA-ready yet even if this were all she wrote (which it isn't).
First, the intro's a little long for my taste. This happens a lot but I really think one of those grafs could be combined with another.
Second, the section on "Priest's alleged molestation of Foley" has a stray AP dateline at the bottom. Was this just cut-and-pasted from the wire? I will give the editors the benefit of the doubt, but whether it needs to be rewritten or not that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 18:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just cut the lede by about 40%, and delted the AP dateline -- probably just left over from a cut and paste to an inline cite. Thesmothete 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on grounds of it being too current eventsy. It's not even entirely up to date - part of Mark_Foley_scandal#Post-scandal_polls_and_commentary was obviously written before the midterms. I think this is just too high profile for the time being. Tuf-Kat 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In addition to being a current event, I also have concerns about the addition of vague accusations regarding Jim Kolbe and an unnamed congressman being included in this article which is named Mark Foley scandal (which itself should probably be renamed Mark Foley controversy). Also refering to people's roles as "controversial" violates POV policy (e.g. "Other leaders whose roles are controversial include Reynolds, John Boehner, John Shimkus, Ken Mehlman, and Sue W. Kelly"). Lastly, aesthetically, this article is a mess. There seems to have been no thought put into writing a coherent, flowing article. It's just a mish-mash of random facts. --Jayzel 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]