Talk:Dan Wolf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Grammarx, I'll be glad to take this one. Sorry you've had such a long wait for a reviewer. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days--thanks in advance for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this article appears to be a reasonably complete picture of Wolf's career to date, and I've dealt with most of the copyediting problems. Images and stability are fine.

But I'm concerned that this nomination has some problems with both neutrality and original research. The summary of his PPACA testimony, for example, seems to be based purely on transcripts and video, rather than a secondary source description: " Despite repeated attempts by Republican members on the committee to sway him into commenting that the laws would stifle business and hurt employees, Wolf continually defended the reforms. Wolf's statement was eventually cut short by Republican Chairman Darrell Issa, a staunch PPACA opponent".

Other problematic points:

• "Wolf, along with Kay Khan in the House of Representatives introduced the "2013 Earned Paid Sick Time" bill, which would allow employees to one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty worked. The bill would protect one-third of the Massachusetts workforce, who are without access." -- sourced only to advocacy group
• "Wolf characterized his motivation for entering politics as a call of duty," -- what's the source for this, especially since it's linked to call of duty (law)?
• "similar to Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity" -- Wolf's document doesn't mention Paul Ryan, and no other source is given
• "His company Cape Air has been recognized as a leader in energy efficiency" -- it would be better to say which group made this statement, rather than imply it is generally agreed this is the case. (the sources seem to be NEEP and the invited speakers at a Cape Air event, if I'm reading these right.)

Other language about Wolf's promises, his "emerging as a voice", being a "staunch supporter", etc. strikes me as slightly non-neutral.

But the biggest issue for me is that the article contains no criticism of Wolf; it strains credibility to imagine that Dan Wolf has been universally praised throughout his career, as the current state of the article suggests--he may have run unopposed in 2012, but he had rivals in 2010, and he clearly ruffled some Republican feathers with his state senate career. (Just glancing at the 2010 sources, it's clear that he was criticized by his rivals for so lavishly outspending them; this should at least be touched on, I'd think.) There's really no text here that couldn't come straight from Wolf's campaign website (and in some places, it does).

For these reasons, I don't think this one is ready for GA, but I do appreciate your work on it so far. Wolf's an interesting character and it was a pleasure to learn about him in reading and researching for this this morning. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)