Talk:George W. Bush shoeing incident/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is substandard for GA and needs considerable work. There are two many short choppy sentences and paragraphs and too many sentences that begin "In <some date>, ...". Especially in the "Reaction" and "Timeline" sections, the article ends up being a list of events and actions and quotes without any thematic narrative cohesion or sense of relative importance. These parts of the article need a complete reexamination and reworking to better represent the material in clear and concise manner. In addition, the unadorned bullet point list in the "Timeline" section is inappropriate for this kind of article and should be rendered in prose. It isn't clear if the book and the play whose titles begin with The Last Salute are two versions of the same thing, or different things, and titles of books and plays should be in italics not double quotes. Some of the other formatting in the article needs fixing as well. There are repeat links, such as to George W. Bush, and unnecessary links to well-known countries. Links such as National Portrait Gallery (United States) should be piped to hide the disambiguation phrase. The mentions of the online shoe-throwing games and the Letterman bit should be moved into the "Parodies" section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Given the other issues with the article, I did not look closely at it for sourcing or copyvio issues. But there are at least two 'citation needed' flags in the article currently, when there should not be any for an article submitted to GAN.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Regarding covering major aspects, content additions to the article seem to have stopped around the end of the 2000s. What further reactions to the event have happened in the decade since then? Is the incident still talked about in either Iraq or the United States, or has it faded in popular consciousness? Bush mentioned the incident in his memoir Decision Points (around page 392), what did he say about it there? Has he said anything further about it, now that he has more perspective on it? What if anything has al-Zaidi said about it in recent years? Regarding the article being focused, there is too much detail in places. There is an article on Muntadhar al-Zaidi and some of the detail in this article about him and his injuries and his trial etc might be better covered there. Actually, I get the impression that a lot of the material in this article may have been originally added to the al-Zaidi article, as the events happened, and later imported into this article. Some kind of plan needs to be adopted regarding what material goes where, and then the material should be made more concise with the important points made more clear.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nothing jumped out at me regarding neutrality, but given the other issues with the article, I did not look closely at this aspect.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The substandard prose and the organization of the material are major issues that will take considerable time and effort to correct. So this nomination is a fail.