Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1996 United States campaign finance controversy

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

1996 United States campaign finance controversy edit

Self-Nomination --Jayzel68 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Minor Object Would support next time - only one note (which isn't even a note), way too many embedded external links, list-weighty. AndyZ 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "note" header to "See also." Removed most of the embedded links and replaced them with inline citations. Removed "List of uncooperative witnesses. --Jayzel68 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the newspaper references in the contreversy be converted to footnotes? Another thing - see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked - all full dates should be linked. I believe the quotes should also be referenced, though I'm not absolutely positive about that. AndyZ 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this- I should've been clearer earlier- according to the Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked, only full dates should be linked- that is month and day. On the section above it, what not should be linked is only the year or a month and a year. AndyZ 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your issues have been addressed. Note: there are a few mentions of newspapers just for flavor, but I still put in the citations. --Jayzel68 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Date links have been fixed. --Jayzel68 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this sentence trying to get out- The controversy surrounding whether or not to appoint an independent counsel aside, the Justice Department's internal investigation was fruitful in of itself. it seems as if the grammar is slightly off here. AndyZ 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other small issues- James Riady is mentioned in the begining of the section as "son"- I'm assuming of Mochtar. He later is mentioned as having gone to the White House 20 times, but I can't draw any clear connection between Riady and Huang, since every other sentence only mentions Huang as doing everything. Is the temple a major figure? Is the lead sentence true (and NPOV), considering that some of the donators denied that they had contact with the chinese government? Another thing, "who donated illegal money" I believe should be "who donated money illegally" since the money itself isn't illegal/counterfeit. Also, watch out for weasel words, I'm not sure if there are many occurrences of weasel words, but "it was reported . . ." is a weasel word- by whom was it reported? Another thing- "The most notable convictions were against" the sentence only mentions one conviction, so it probably should be notable conviction was. AndyZ 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, it would be helpful it you would give me your complaints altogether rather than piecemeal. With that said, I have a addressed your issues regarding "son", "figure", "who donated illegal money", "weasel word", and "notable convictions". As for your issues re: the huang/riady connection and the lead sentence: 1) I have a picture of riady with huang together and I mention huang worked for riady for years and that they were both convicted of donating foreign funds. Huang, specifically through his former employer riady; 2) just because someone denies someone doesn't mean it didn't happen. The FBI, CIA, and Congress came to the conclusion that they did. --Jayzel68 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about this article not making FA status- however after this FAC this article looks great and you could probably get it to FA status the next time around. I have to admit: you put a lot of effort into this. As for the second thing about the denials, leaning towards the American view of the scandal would be POV, since you are inferring that something did happen when somebody denies it. Of course given the sitatution that the FBI, CIA, Congress came to the conclusion that they were involved, it seems to be that this statement is true- however to be not WP:POV, it would be best to add into the introduction a short quick viewpoint from the Chinese government. AndyZ 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support - For the reasons above. "List of uncooperative witnesses" for instance... seems extraneous. If it's really encyclopedic, move it to a seperate article and link it. The section has no description of what "Uncooperative" means, or why the list is important. Is it just to show there were a lot of "uncooperative" witnesses (again, what does "uncooperative" mean anyway?)? If so, you could just write, in prose, that there were a lot of them, and then discuss the topic some more. Fix that section, fix the referencing style (move all those links to a "References" section using inline citations) and then we'll talk about additional problems. Fieari 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above comment. You may have overlooked the text directly above the former "List of witnesses." I did specify how they were uncooperative. Thanks all for the comments. --Jayzel68 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like what you've done so far... good job on that. Now there's just a little more work to be done. I'd like to see something of an introductory section in the main body of the article, not just in the header, which goes into a little bit more detail with regards to the surrounding circumstances for the scandal, political climate, and that sort of thing. Think of this article from a "far future" point of view, in that in the year 2087, some high-school history student is looking up information on our time period, but has no clue about what was going on in the big picture now. Maybe the structure of campaign finance or whatever is so fundamentally different then that the entire concept of the scandal is incomprehensible. What if we become friends with China in the future, so that you can't just assume that readers will know that dealings with china is a bad thing. Forgetting the future, what if someone who is simply ignorant of these facts (say a forigner) tries reading this? You need to tell them. Fieari 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like your recent edits. I Support now. Fieari 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new section that I believe address your concerns --Jayzel68 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Lead is poorly written, with several questionable phrases, and also contains a quote from a person not directly involved and does not use a proper citation for the quote. The rest of the article also needs significant improvements, including formatting issues. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless you specify what the alleged "questionable phrases" are, or why you think the lead is "poorly written," I will not be able to do anything to change it to your satisfaction. I feel the quote I used is pertinent and useful in that is distills the issue in such a short and clear way. Mr. Lund may not have been directly involved in laudering funds from the Chinese government, but he was a China analyst for the Canadian government. I personally feels this give him weight on the subject. I guess this issue is just a matter of opinion. Lastly, your comment that "the rest article also needs significant improvements" leaves me helpless without any specific criticism ("formatting" is too vague). Thanks. --Jayzel68 17:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as "popular term" and "(some alleged, some proven)" need to be rewritten and cited. The lead places undue emphasis on that quote, which I feel is only nominally important to the topic. The lead should summarize the article, not be a place for a quote by an uninvolved party. (In other words, I don't think that the lead is the appropriate spot for that particular quote.) It should be cited using the {{ref}} format you've used below, unless I'm mistaken. Some specific improvements: the article keeps on mentioning "See list of convictions", with a link to a section below. A self-ref is bad style. Also, in the "Congressional investigations" section, you begin with two external links, which shouldn't be there. (They should be moved to either a reference or external link section). The "List of convictions stemming from affair" section can also be either moved to a seperate article and then summarized in prose form, or rewritten with more links and more prose rather than bulleted list. The "See also" section has a huge wikilink at the top followed by prose; a see also section is for other wikilinks with minimal prose. I hope this helps! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All issues have been addressed. I look forward to your support. :) --Jayzel68 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, but I've still got a few issues. :-) First, in the last paragraph of the "Yah Lin 'Charlie' Trie and Wang Jun" section, there's an unlinked ref - you must have missed it. Second, I would like to see some more refs on the quotes you give. For example, in the "Maria Hsia and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple" section there's three quotes, no refs. You provided the speaker, but no ref or source. Finally, the "convictions" section still needs some work - it stil reads like a list, and many of the people are not mentioned beforehand. (For example, it's the first time "Robert S. Lee" is mentioned. Who is he? Is he important enough to be mentioned?) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've incorporated your suggestions. Hope you like. Thanks --Jayzel68 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting article, good writing, relevant photos (although Janet Reno always makes my skin crawl). Kafziel 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments in the peer review. Proto||type 11:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (Actually, I'm not, but it's a really good thing to do.[reply]
    • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required.
    • That's quite a standard. Funny, I don't recall that being mentioned in the FAC list of requirements. If it was required, 95% of all FAs would have to be removed. Heck, many of the featured articles don't have references of any kind. Tell me, before I go through the headache of indulging in your request, do you have any other objections to the article? --Jayzel68 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; reference formatting is specifically left up to personal taste by the style guide, and isn't a valid objection (as long as the references, however they are formatted, are comprehensive). Kafziel 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now you tell me. :) I just changed the citations to agree with the new format. --Jayzel68 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the new format so obviously better? No more ibids, and if you move something around, the reference follows. And I gave you a barnstar! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Reads like a tabloid, example: calling the Army's international arms trade corp "a front company for the Chinese military-industrial complex" Also doesn't mention China joining the WTO. Focuses too much on the hype to be a featured article.--Colle| |Talk-- 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, but your opinion that you feel reality is somehow "tabloid" isn't a reasonable objection. Every period and comma in the article is backed up by reputable sources. Specifically, the quote you mention comes from the non-partisian Nuclear Threat Initiative organization that is co-chaired by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn. Also, your comment about hype is a falsehood and I dare you to cite an example. The article is very constrained. Lastly, regarding your criticism about the article not mentioning China's entry into the WTO: So what? The article also does not mention sugar causes tooth decay . They are both completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Something tells me it is the subject matter alone that makes you uncomfortable. Regards, --Jayzel 07:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like your metaphor, because the WTO situation is somewhat like the sugar that caused the tooth decay. 'Tabloid' may not be the right word, I ment it in the sense of focusing on the sensational; such as focus on the individual actors, and using phrases such as "military industrial complex." One other comment: There shouldn't be US political jargon or abbreviations such as (D-OH). Also, although its not essential, it would be nice for there was a section that outlined the outcome/long term effects of the scandal. I will look into this more tommorow.--Colle| |Talk-- 07:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if you are really disturbed by the term I can always shorten the quote "military industrial complex" to just "military". You can do it yourself too if you want. I'm going to sleep now. As for dealing with the characters Wang, Huang, Hsia, Trie, Chung, et al.: I wouldn't have an article without them. The article is about the "1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal" not "campaign finance" issues in general. Re: (D-OH), I'll change it tomorrow when I wake up. Lastly, someone else mentioned adding something about the outcome or effects of the scandal, but I felt that would be getting more into the area of opinion and would risk violating the NPOV policy here. If you think you could handle it without doing so, help yourself. Ciao, --Jayzel 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the "american jargon" and cut the quote to remove the offending "military industrial complex." The focus on the scandal players remains. To remove them would be like discussing Iran-Contra without mention Ollie North and John Poindexter or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict without mentioning Yasser Arafat or Yitzak Rabin. Regards, --Jayzel 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy&oldid=1138453109"