Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Andrew Saul

Andrew Saul

Request peer review for Andrew Saul. Would like to ensure NPOV, and elevate to GA and eventually A-class status. MrPrada 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Sorry, but I couldn't make myself read all this. So, only a few points:

• The lead is way too long.

Heh, I will try to work on that. A few other GAs I've submitted were initially turned down for having leads that were too short--so now I tend to do them overkill. I was attempting to follow the guideline that the lead should be an article in and of itself suitable for inclusion on Wiki for Schools CD or Wiki 1.0 MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's more an article about the TSP and Saul's current campaign. Done

I figured this would be an issue (at least the part about the TSP). However I would like to point out that the TSP section is fundamentally different then the other actual TSP article, except for the section on the TSP funds. The reason that this information isn't on the other article is because it discusses Saul's direct involvement, which I think is more relevant to this article then the one on the plan. As for the "TSP Funds", which I think there smallest case to include, I put it in there because the article goes on to discuss all of these various types of funds and I think it helps the reader differentiate between them. Besides, I've taken it almost directly from the TSP website, because I am by no means a financial expert. MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

• It even links to Saul's campaign website in a most prominent spot. Is that compatible with our NPOV rules? Done

As far as I know, Yes. It is identical to every other politician infobox I've seen. If its wrong, please let me know so I can take it out of the templates (since I know I've added website links to a number of articles and probably won't be able to go back and remove all of them by hand) MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lupo 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above review that the current article is a disorganized and overlong mess.

I'm not sure I agree that it is overly long, although I have reread it several times and will attempt to organize it better. It weighs in about the same size as other FA bios.

"millionaire businessman from Katonah, New York" should be removed, and his candidacy should be included in the first paragraph. "Andrew Saul is Chairman... and a Republican candidate for United States Congress."

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with referring to him as a millionaire? I'd have no problem taking it out, I just don't really see a problem with stating the obvious. His money surely has had an influence on his political appointments and congressional ambitions.

All but the first sentence about TSP should be removed from the lead. The paragraph about the TSP's finances and his political views re: the TSP should all be moved to the TSP section.

Removing all of that content would bring it under what WP:Lead calls for. It is a summary of everything that follows in the TSP section, there is no new information to merge. Also, are you differentiating between the FTRIB or the TSP?

Cache: "has served on the board" - is he currently on the board? Done

As far as I know, yes, according to the last SEC filings.

Has he been required to set aside his board memberships for the political campaign, or would he be required to set them aside if elected?

No, at least not for his role as Chairman of the FRTIB according to the referenced Senate testimony. He may have to leave the board if elected, however I don't want to violate WP:OR and look it up. Perhaps I can include some prior precedent from another CEO-congerssman?

Bridge and tunnel "some public outcry" should be defined. Were there demonstrations? Newspaper editorials? Specific concerns about transportation safety, or just a general concern that maintenance should be better funded? How did the MTA respond? Done

The article that is cited details the outcry, it was town hall style meetings. Perhaps I could rephrase somehow? It is so recent that the MTA hasn't had their monthly board meeting yet to respond.

The photo caption is completely unneeded. It should simply read, "Andrew Saul (left) at an MTA station." Done

I was trying to follow the summarization suggestions from the how-to-write-an-FA guide. I can remove it.

The "bungled computer project" and "economic weapon" paragraphs read like campaign speeches praising a candidate, not encyclopedia reports of historical events. "Designed the TSP around index funds as a way to stymie..." is opinion unless you have a valid source indicating that this was officially the intention of Congress. "investment consultant" is duplicated. The nature of the conflict with Congress is not specified in the article. Done

Bungled computer project can easily be rephrased. Not sure how you would rework "economic weapon", that is what the divesting is supposed to accomplish, is it not? Also, it is cited, so I am unsure what other valid source I should provide? It is not the opinion of ALL congressmembers, I will reread it to make sure I am not implying that in the text. The conflict wtih congress was over political manipulation of the TSP-funds. I included a section on authority, and REITs.

ALL the background material about the TSP should be moved to a new article about the TSP. The Andrew Saul article should consist ONLY of material that is specific to Mr. Saul's career, campaign, and personal history. Done

The background material on the TSP (specifically, the first paragraph of the TSP section, and the "Fund section") already exist in the TSP-article. They are inserted here to help the reader better understand the difference between the different types of funds, how they work, and what they are invested in, since nearly all of what follow discusses Saul and the funds.

The references section should only be used for citing references. The long quotes should be used within the body of the article itself.  Done

Perhaps I can move the quotes to a footnotes section? I did not want to make the article any longer then it already is in the main portion of it, so the full quotes were left down at the bottom.MrPrada 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

VisitorTalk 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)