This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed its second WP:FAC. The article is very thorough and well-cited. However, this guy is a Reaganite and Ronald Reagan took 6 WP:FACs and 2 WP:PRs (not to mention 2 WP:GACs to achieve WP:FA. I am not a political scholar, but I imagine some people bring thier own persuasion into the promotion process for political figures. I have felt that at the conclusion of each WP:FAC process, I have substantially addressed the concerns raised, but the reviewers failed to reconsider their opinions in time for the FA promotion. I am not entirely convinced that much needs to be done to the article when I compare its quality to my other 5 successful WP:FAs, but I bring it here on the advice of User:SandyGeorgia.
Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Its not a bad article. Its just long, which makes it hard to copy-edit everything. Don't get discouraged. The majority of complaints were in copy-editing, and if you can appease those who expressed this concern then it should move through. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looking at the first part, refs need to be in correct order e.g [3][65] instead of [65][3]. This is quite a minor thing, but could easily mean the difference in an FAC. D.M.N. (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The problem with going with numerical order is that sometimes the more important citation is not the one with the lower number. Often, they are out of order because the better citation is listed first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's 61KB readable prose, more than the 50KB suggested guideline at WP:SIZE. Neither Reagan nor Hillary Clinton nor McCain have articles this large. His football career (which is brief in relation to the rest of his life) should be spun out to a daughter article and summarized back to the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, news sources don't need to repeat the publisher when they're the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At FAC2 we resolved that current convention is that this is sort of a stylistic choice with no prevailing policy and that the prevailing stylistic convention is to link all occurrences in an FA. (See Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC))--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I will be willing to help you with the above if you would like my support. This was my original issue, and I know of some locations that would be great to place on their own page and expand. You can feel free to contact me if you would like my opinion. If not, thats okay. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIZE says "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles" and WP:SPLIT's only directive is that articles in excess of 60KB may be candidates to be split. Kemp is within the word count and the question is what does much longer than 50 KB mean. Since the other directive in the article suggest that over 60 KB is when you should consider splitting I decided to take a look at articles that may give us some guidance on the upper limit of article size. A quick run through the 20th century American Political figure featured articles reveals the following about the 50KB readable prose rule:
- Selected good articles are as follows:
I have reduced Kemp from 62.6/10383 to 60.9/9988. I could surely take him under 60 KB without a split. Before we get hasty with the wikiaxe let me try that and see where we are at in terms of excess size.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Kemp's political career is not as notable as the four President's who exceed 50 by 10% or more, he had a much more notable non-political career than the top 3 and probably more notable than Reagan's as well. In terms of athletes who have become Politicians, he is only rivaled by Bill Bradley among modern politicians for notability in both professions. I think an FA quality Bradley bio would push the limit as well although I do not know much about him beyond his Presidential viability. The point here is that although Kemp was never a President, his bio commands a lot of space due to his athletic significance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - As a reviewer at Kemp's second FAC, I am ready to offer some suggestions to get the article over the hump.
- First off, why does ref#121 (The Republicans in '88) have an English tag? Does Atlantic Monthly publish in multiple languages? If so, why doesn't the ref below it have a tag as well?
- Is Marriage and family in the proper spot? Some may argue that it should be moved after Post-political life. I can see the dilemma, since facts will be out of chronological order either way. What are your thoughts on this?
- My problem is that the two paragraphs are so short that separating them makes puts them out of place as a separate section. Chronologically the second paragraph belongs elsewhere, but stylistically it is in the right place, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look at it, breaking most of the football info into a new article is not a bad idea. The season recap paragraphs would be great in any other article, but most athletes don't have a similar career after retirement. The problem in my view is that it could be argued that his political career should be split off as well. It's a tough call.
- I am still trying to shorten the overall article. I have spend some time looking at Bill Bradley, Jim Bunning, Jim Ryun, & Steve Largent. These are the modern national politicians who are most similar to him athletically. None of them have split athletic careers. Of these only Bradley seems to have ever risen to the level of a serious Presidential contender and none of them are even WP:GA so it is hard to say if this is a precedent. I think in each case the multiple infoboxes are essential to the reader's ability to quickly understand who the subject is. I guess the other comparison group might be comparing politicians who have had prominent military (or business) careers before elective politics. I would not be a good source for such a list. However, it would likely produce people who come closer to pushing WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT limits. Dwight D. Eisenhower has seveal split articles. Since his article is only B-Class, maybe it might be considered more thorough and higher quality without the splits. Tough call. If I new high quality politician articles that could compare that might be helpful, but in the abstract (and as a lifelong Bills fan) I would find it discomforting to look for his football career and have it relegated to a daughter article. Since above I name over a half dozen articles that could easily be split, I am not sure why it is the football career that would have to go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chargers era: Do we need the full name of the team in the first sentence. It's in the previous sentence, and the move is explained later.
- "In 1962, the Chargers drafted Lance Alworth and John Hadl in the 1962 AFL Draft." Explain in the article why this is relevant. Also, 1962 is used twice; I would drop the latter.
- This sentence is written to give the reader two pieces of information that I can't make clearer without any WP:RS. 1.) The Chargers may have realized that Hadl was a suitable replacement for Kemp and risked him on waivers for that reason. 2.) Charger fans want to know if legendary Charger Alworth ever played with Kemp because that is how sports fans are. This article gives them the information that they need to answer this question. I mention it for the same reason I mention the Bills drafted and signed O.J. later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In one section, the Chargers are trying to hide Kemp, and the transaction isn't mentioned until the next section. I think the move itself should be in the Chargers section.
- The names of the sections seem to agree with the current split. I have rewritten it to stand alone from the prior section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lou Saban era: Buffalo Bill is a bad link.
- "not so excited about coming to Buffalo. Is "so" needed? With the quote that follows, I think you can safely get rid of it.
- Comma after November 28, 1962?
- I do not see what you are referring to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave you the wrong day. It's November 18, 1962, in the second paragraph of Lou Saban era. After a second look, though, I'm not sure it needs a comma. I think you can get away without one. Giants2008 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daryle Lamonica is fully named in consecutive sentences. When fixing this, watch that you don't have a bunch of Lamonicas in a row.
- Three are still left, but I don't feel comfortable replacing any of them with pronouns.
- "While bulldozers removed the snow from the frozen field, fans threw snowballs at the Pinkerton guards." I thought my team's fans were the only ones who threw snowballs on the field, so it's interesting. Is it relevant, though?
- Denver Broncos linked twice in section.
- fixed. I really would not mind getting rid of the second one as has been suggested as I look at shortening the article. I just don't know what to do with the citation. I can't stick it in the middle of a quote above and I don't know if it also pertains to the earlier part of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sporting News should be in italics. Not sure about the other award.
That's it for now. Let me know if you want another check. Giants2008 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]