Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Saul/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Andrew Saul edit

I am nominating Andrew Saul because I know that it is extremely close to becoming a featured article. As it stands now, the piece comprehensive, verified, contains no original research, and in line with all policies. It has undergone some peer review(including automated) and GA-nomination. It may need a few style changes and some copy editing, but nothing that should preclude it from FA-class that I can see. It will help to have some fresh sets of eyes and collaboration. I'd just like to say before hand that I realize it is long. It is about 9,000 words, most of the 70Kb is actually markup.

I know that the first part of the TSP section and the TSP Funds probably have the least to do with Saul himself, however I think explaining them is integral to understanding the rest of the article for a nonexpert user, since it talks so much about the TSP and the funds. I realize the funds portion is nearly verbatim from the TSP wiki-article (which is itself verbatim from the TSP government website), however I am not a finance expert and I'm really not qualified to explain it any better then it already is(and I have modified it a bit from its original format, so now its more like the TSP article copies this one). The only other issue I've had is wether or not to wikilink all the dates. Any guidance on this would be appreciated.

Anyway, I hope that you will support Andrew Saul for FA-class once any small issues are dealt with. MrPrada 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on stability of politician articles
  • 'Comment i think this candidate should be suspended until the congressional election has finished
I would like to note that the election is not until November of 2008, which would be an awfully long time to suspend a nomination. Also, wasn't the Barrack Obama article on a Presidential candidate recently on FAR and kept? See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2. That candidate is in a January '08 primary election. The congerssional portion of the article is about 1/5th of the total content, I personally do not believe that should preclude it from gaining FA-status. Now, it is a valid argument to keep it off of the main page. MrPrada 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeh i know but in other fac's, i.e. the simpsons movie, they insisted on waiting until it was released on DVD, so i suppose it add's to the articles encyclopedic value. But, go for whatever you guys think is appropriate, you're the professional's, i just thought i'd give my 2 cents
Active politician FAs: Jean Schmidt (congresswoman), Thomas Brinkman (Congressman), Bob McEwen (former congressman), Barrack Obama (presidential candidate), Wesley Clark (Presidential candidate). All of these FAs have the ongoing election tag, all were nominated and/or survived FA-review close to or during an election season, which provides precedent to consider Saul for FA-status a year and a half before the election. But thanks for sharing your opinion—like I said, if their is a consensus opinion to suspend the nomination, I will not object, although I do not see how it can be done in the face of the precedent to include such articles as FAs. Its more about the quality then the timing, to me at least, and in the case, fifteen months out, an argument against promoting it based on timing is very hard for me to agree with. MrPrada 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Comments
1. Image:MTA disc.png is a copyrighted image and use in this article appears to be for decorative purpose only. At the very least, the image fair use description should contain a fair use rationale for use in this article.
Will research if another version of the logo is available. It doesn't have to remain in the article, since I found a photo of him in a MTA station. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MrPrada 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The section "Congressional campaign" contains a banner that the content might change, which is (a bit) at odds with the requirement for an FA article to be stable. Any ideas on that? I do not know how this is usually dealt with.
I will research into the other WP:BIO FAs about active pols and respond to this. My understanding is that stability means that it has not been the subject of an ongoing edit war between several groups of editors (the Obama article was one fringe editor versus a large consensus, that was not enough to say it should be delisted for instability). I think that adding or changing content over time, by editors who are keeping up on the topic, would not be a hinderance to the article or detract from the quality. If it degenerated into some kind of edit war as the election approached, it could always be brought up for FA-review.MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See below. MrPrada 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Image:Thriftboard1.jpg does not have a caption in the article
Why did you struck this one? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a caption in the markup, it is not displaying for some reason. I have trouble with the image: tag from time to time, perhaps someone could help me fix that? MrPrada 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MrPrada 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Perhaps the numbers under "TSP funds" can be in the form of a table, that would help the readability
Will get on this ASAP. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MrPrada 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Some links under "External links" could use a short description
Will get on this ASAP. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MrPrada 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Under "Early career and background" there are some inline external links. Personally, I prefer that these are converted to wikilinks, linking to (stub) articles explaining the topic. The external links can go in the stub article then.
It would be difficult for me to write stubs on these organizations since I am not acquainted with them, nor am I positive that they are particularly notable. Is there a policy against inline links in FAs? If so, I could remove them entirely and just leave them dark. Personally, I prefer being able to associate them, but I would prefer to leave it how the community feels is best. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is any policy against it, it is just a personal preference of me :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I will create wiki-stubs for any of the thinks that are notable. MrPrada 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have very serious concerns about this article. About 95% of the content has come from one editor. Moreover, that editor's Wikipedia contributions are overwhelmingly focused either on Andrew Saul or other topics/people connected to Andrew Saul. I therefore consider it highly likely—overwhelmingly likely—that this editor is on Wikipedia primarily to edit this one article. The lack of edits by others makes me dubious of the article's objectivity. There could be a heavy (but subtle) selection bias in the sources that only someone who knows Andrew Saul would be able to detect. I also notice that the article has been marked as "high" importance on a number of WikiProjects. Is he that important, when hardly any other editors have touched the article? The more I look at this article, I see one red flag after another. Marc Shepherd 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing FA-director: This oppose should be discarded or at best considered a comment because it has not listed any of the "red flags" to be addressed, among other issues.

    • I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, other then to say, I'm a member of the military--of course Andrew Saul is important to me, he manages my pension. Please list the red flags, and I will try to address them one at a time.

      And to address the concern that I'm "only here to edit one article" and that all of my edits have to do with Saul-related topics...
      total edits: 3532
      number of unique pages 1435

Mainspace
338 Andrew Saul
146 John Watts de Peyster
124 Willis Stephens
114 RoseMarie Panio
83 Hugh Boyle Ewing
63 Eliot Spitzer
57 Johnston de Peyster
33 Michael Benjamin Bonheur
31 Kentucky in the American Civil War
24 Civil Affairs
18 Kieran Lalor
16 George Pataki
16 Joseph J. DioGuardi
14 William Tecumseh Sherman

    • Clearly, your statements about me are inaccurate. However, I would be happy to work with you to improve the article.
    • As for the selection page, this article is more objective then Saul's own biography, which contains inaccuracies such as "Andrew’s accomplishments with the Federal Thrift Investment Board include cutting operating expenses by over $20 million while helping to grow the plan by over $2.5 billion a month. When Andrew began as Chairman, the fund was valued at $98 million, under his leadership he has grown the fund to $225 billion. It is the largest retirement fund in the United States of America, providing retirement security for more than 3.7 million participants." That was how this article originally looked, a word-for-word copy of the bio. At least my edits corrected this. I would love to mention this in the article, but it would violate WP:OR since no media outlet has picked up on it.
    • On the topic of "high-importance", the man manages the pensions of four million people (high importance to New York), runs a US Government agency requiring Presidential nomination and Senate Confirmation (high importance Biography), sits on the MTA board (high importance to Trains and NYC Transportation), was the CEO of two major fashion companies (high importance to Fashion and B&E). There are no other concerns in your "oppose" that can be addressed. The FA-process requires a specific rationale that can be addressed, so at this time, your vote cannot be counted in the final tally.
  • Furthermore, I'd like to add that I knew nothing about Andrew Saul when I started this article. The sources I used were EVERY source I could find via Google, Google Books, Google News, Google Blogs, and Google Archive. If you can find any other sources, please, list them, and I will incorporate them.

MrPrada 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove that tally; FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)  Done MrPrada 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The TSP and related retirement board sections shift the focus to the federal organization away from Saul. Although he was the chairman, the sections focus more on what has been done (e.g. a product) rather than the person. This is a borderline coatrack situation where the person is hidden. I will elaborate on the article's talk page.
  • The captions for the images of Saul should explain the actions of the images. Right now, in the context of a political candidacy (and even without it), they sound like propaganda and even appear as such. (The images are admittedly from campaign brochures.)
  • I doubt that the Bridges and Tunnels mention reagarding the Minnesota bridge collapse is notable unless you can elaborate on it; I think heightened awareness of bridges and transportation infrastructure occurred everywhere in the US after the collapse. The same goes for his opposition to the December 2005 MTA discounts; that's more of a news story and to heighten that board vote out of many others is probably not a good idea.
  • Is there any way to cite the books, which do not immediately show the person as the subject of the books, inline in the article?

What I think Marc Shepherd is trying to say, in part, is many featured articles have been edited by a sufficient number of peers before they are accepted as featured articles. (At least this is what I see and expect from featured articles.) Plus, featured articles normally take a long time to develop. This in itself should not preclude FA candidates, but there is a big difference between no edit wars or minimal day-to-day changes over a long article history than the same over a short article history. This article was only created July 8, 2007! From this alone, I don't think the article is stable because it needs more time (in months or weeks) to be reviewed and refined thoroughly. But my more pressing concern is that the summary style should be extensively refined. TLK'in 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is not an actionable objection, nor is the one editor actionable. If folks oppose this article, they need to give actionable examples from WP:WIAFA. Many articles have been featured in a matter of weeks; you need to demonstrate why it's not neutral or not comprehensive or not stable or whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I withdraw my comments on holding the sole editor responsible and how quickly the article was nominated from its creation. I never said those comments are actionable, and never thought they would be anyway. But there is too much unnecessary detail about the TSP that is handled in another article (4), the article needs to relate more on the subject's direct actions in order to be comprehensive and concise: it is not clear whether the actions are attributable to Saul or the retirement board (4), the captions should describe the image (3), and the books need to be cited inline (2d). The last one I cannot fix because I don't have those sources. Plus, the main editor has all the expertise. The political campaign section I still need to read over, but I see still more tangents. TLK'in 06:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sandy, I don't think you're the arbiter of which objections are permissible. Where you have a long article about a candidate for political office, and practically all the content is coming from one person, the potential for POV abuse is pretty obvious. I'm a New Yorker, and follow politics pretty closely, and I've never heard of this guy. He becomes a candidate, and a 75k article appears out of nowhere? The article shouldn't be featured until it has has passed the gauntlet of fact-checking and POV checking that comes from work by multiple editors. Marc Shepherd 12:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Sandy. Marc, if you want to object, you must do so on the basis of the text, not these extraneous matters. The text and the Criteria are all that matter here. No tallies, no votes, and please, minimal personal discourse. Tony 14:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'd be happy to see the non-relevant text here moved to the talk page of the article. Otherwise, this will end up being re-started. Tony 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we will have to agree to disagree. My objections are strictly based on the lack of neutrality, which clearly is a featured article criterion. Marc Shepherd 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on two grounds.
    • I agree with Marc Shephard that the prose is tendentious; for example, this passage from the lead, even although sourced, is laudatory and defensive: As Chairman of the Thrift Investment Board, he is responsible for managing the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is the retirement savings account for employees of the Federal Government and soldiers of the armed services.[4] The TSP is known to reap higher returns for their retirement than comparable private-sector workers, and is immune from many of the problems that plague mutual funds. This is not a neutral tone; is unlikely to indicate consensus opinion; and is, above all, undue weight where it stands.
    • More seriously, it is appallingly obscure. This may not be our editor's fault; if all he can find is second-hand government prose, which he does not understand, he's stuck. But the objective of a Wikipedia editor should be to read the sources, understand them, and explain them to the reader. There is nothing wrong with keeping this, if we can't do better; but it is not FA material by any stretch of the imagination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER. Looks like PR campaign to me. Same user under IP address 67.87.233.252 created also articles about this candidate on Spanish, French, Dutch and Italian Wikipedias. It was his sole contribution to each project. M0RD00R 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not really sure how this turned into a discussion of me instead of the article. Creating stub versions of it on the other wikipedias has nothing to do with the article, or its featured status. It does have to do with soliciting as many contributors as possible to research this guy, who is notable in more then one language. It's strange, in all of March Shepard's arguments that this piece os biased and only had one contributor, he forgets that I solicited his opinion and that of many others in the applicable Wikiprojects so they could come and improve the article and neutralize any of that bias. I see a few people are starting to do that, which would also coumtermand his claim that the article cannot be featured because it had only one contributor(which, as I understand, is not a valid ground to oppose). What I dislike is making more edits to the talk page and FA-nom then the article itself, without speficially mentioning things that I should trying to fix or for other editors to fact-check. MrPrada 12:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andrew_Saul/archive1&oldid=1078785934"