Talk:Ross Perot/Archives/2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year of Eagle Scout rank earned

I had made an edit to the year that Ross Perot earned Eagle rank. It was removed because I did not cite a source? It was the first and only time that I have made an edit on a Wikipedia page, and it's taken me about 20 minutes to figure out how to use this "talk" section to reply to a notification by NJA informing me that they had removed my edit.

I have been a Boy Scout volunteer since 2009. A boy must be 11 years old to join Boy Scouts. Therefore if his birth year is 1930, he would have joined in 1941 sometime after the birth month of June. If he was 13 when he earned Eagle then it would have been in the year 1943, not 1942 as cited in the Wikipedia page.

Source of my correction of the year to 1943 - from an article written by Boy Scouts of America staff Michael Freeman on July 10, 2019.

<ref>https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2019/07/10/ross-perot-longtime-supporter-of-scouting-passes-away-at-age-89/<ref>

"After advancing through the Cub Scout ranks, he joined Troop 18 with the ambitious goal of reaching the Eagle Scout rank in less than a year and a half. He accomplished that goal, earning Eagle at age 13 in 1943."

I now understand that edits are probably best left to those with more time available to follow up, in order to ensure that Wikipedia as a reference retains its level of accuracy. I am happy to continue to donate to Wikimedia Foundation. I am grateful to all of you editors out there.

JOlivermom (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)JOlivermom

@NJA:

PS took a few minutes to figure out how to ping per NJA's request on this comment :-)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ross Perot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HAL333 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

You have a great framework for this article, but it lacks meat. My advice is to read some of the books in the bibliography and add some nice flesh to the article. If you fix these issues and bulk up the text, I think this would be a GA. Best wishes.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I would advise turning the electoral history section into a wikitable, as seen at Bill Clinton. It would make it a little easier to digest.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    What you lack with sources is some good literary references. I'm also not quite sure of the website "On the Issues." Maybe cite the books and articles that it cites.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    You have all the necessary points, but you lack details. For someone as prominent as Perot, this is kind of a short article with only 50,000 bytes. For comparison, George Wallace has over 70,000.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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):
    The signature image could be improved, make it a transparent svg.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Response

@HAL333: I was just about to log off, but before I do:

  • What you lack with sources is some good literary references. - please see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable. What specifically do you believe needs to be cited that isn't?
  • You have all the necessary points, but you lack details. For someone as prominent as Perot, this is kind of a short article with only 50,000 bytes. For comparison, George Wallace has over 70,000. - please see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage - Imposing arbitrary size restrictions, rather than directly addressing GA issues of coverage, conciseness, focus and the use of summary style. is given as a mistake to avoid. You note that the article includes all the necessary points - is there something else that should be included?

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: This is my first try at assessing an GA.
  • On the second bit, here are some things that should be included: (I just used the first section as an example)
    • Early life, education, and military career
  • What religious background was he raised in?
  • What did he study in college?
  • How did he meet his wife?
    • Just add more interesting anecdotes throughout that give the reader a better feel for Perot. For example, just going through this [article], I read that he dug his own father's grave and never had more than one pair of shoes until he joined the military, which he gave as an example of government waste. Just those two things really help me gain a deeper understanding
  • This is representative of what should be done in each section. I mentioned using literary references because I assumed you wouldn't be able to find news-articles with really good information on Perot. I may be wrong on that point. Just pull out more information from the available references. Cheers.~ HAL333 06:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    @HAL333: The criteria of if the article is broad enough is not as strict as, eg, Featured Article Candidates; it doesn't require such "interesting anecdotes" DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You don’t think the fact that his father died young and Ross dug his own grave is relevant? All we currently have is a single sentence saying he changed his name to honor him, whatever that means. ~ HAL333 15:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@HAL333: Not really, no DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I’ve requested a second opinion. You should make some of those changes in the mean time. Cheers. ~ HAL333 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I added the part about his father dying when Perot was 25, but the digging of the grave thing isn't really important DannyS712 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Second Opinion: Agree with nominator. Perot dug his father's grave is an interesting factoid that I think should be in the article if at all possible, but at the moment is not really workable into the prose. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@HAL333: given the second opinion above, is there anything else needed? DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That's about it. It's all good to go. ~ HAL333 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(
)

Created by DannyS712 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

  • Hook is cited, not awfully interesting, but just interesting enough. Article complies with the requirements of DYK, Earwig raises no concerns, QPQ done, ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT1a is good, except that I have taken the liberty of striking "docked". The Guardian obituary says nothing about it, and the Dallas Morning News says "...met Margot on a blind date when he was a midshipman and she was at Goucher College in Baltimore." It’s a reasonable guess he was on a ship there, but at best it’s joining dots. Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bravo

I just saw the Ross Perot article in DYK. Congrats on the GA! -- Zanimum (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Thanks DannyS712 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ross_Perot/Archives/2020&oldid=1154970271"