Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Laura Bush/1

Laura Bush edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. Nominator recommends closure of the GAR. Work on the prose is recommended. Geometry guy 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is quite POV. It contains one paragraph of potentially negative information, and it continually repeats positive things about her. Also, it is not very well written. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As User:AuburnPilot said on the discussion page, where there is a discussion underway regarding your placement of a NPOV tag without any discussion, there is nothing that you have pointed out to us that is POV other than your own personal opinion that an event which occured 40-some years ago should have additional weight added to it. As for your other claims: Repeats positive things? Like what? We are not going to go out and dig up dirt on Laura Bush to provide "balance" -- that's called poor editing. Not well written? How so?

I recommend closure of this GAR as this seems to be a complaint regarding one paragraph in the article, which should be discussed (and has been discussed many times) on the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you now. I want to close this GAR and I removed the paragraph discussing the car accident. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At first glance I see no major POV concern with the article. Do any of the editors have specific recommendations for adding critical content? On a related note, please retain the section on Laura Bush's car accident. As best I can tell most biographies of her pointed to it as a seminal event in her early life.

While POV isn't a major concern, the quality of the writing is borderline for a GA-class work. The article's prose is spotty and could benefit from wordsmithing. An example:

She first became involved with The Heart Truth awareness campaign in 2003. It is an organization established by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to raise awareness about heart disease in women, and how to prevent the condition. She serves in the honorary position of ambassador for the program leading the federal government's effort to give women a "wake up call" about the risk of heart disease. She commented on the disease: "Like many women, I assumed heart disease was a man's disease and cancer was what we would fear the most. Yet heart disease kills more women in our country than all forms of cancer combined. When it comes to heart disease, education, prevention, and even a little red dress can save lives." She has undertaken a signature personal element of traveling around the country and talking to women at hospital and community events featuring the experiences of women who live, or had lived, with the condition. This outreach was credited with saving the life of one woman who went to the hospital after experiencing symptoms of a heart attack.

The prose here is, at best, listless; at its worst ("signature personal element") it's awkward. Is it poor enough to fail GA criteria? Maybe not, but I hope that editors can hone the writing, even if this GAR is speedy-closed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]