Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 4

message: As regards the Clean Up notice, the sprawling, poorly written article on the Article page is filled with factual errors and is weighed down with POVs, editorializing, unneeded detail, too many footnotes, and numerous grammatical errors. Judging by the paltry number of edits to the article, we can assume nobody reads past the first paragraph or two. The article is not objective or balanced (much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian). As the Wikipedia tag notes at the top of the article's edit page, This page is 38 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable. That tells you right away that the article needs editing.
I propose using the following article instead. It is objective and paints a thorough, concise, accurate picture of the former supervisor and mayoral candidate. I request that if you have comments about this article, you put them below the article, not between paragraphs. Thank you. Griot 21:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The proposed article's editor believes it "paints a thorough, concise, accurate picture" while the main article does not.  Yet, upon further examination, the proposed article doesn't meet the editor's own expectations.  It seems reasonable enough to question how the proposed article does what its proponent says when the reasons for using it don't amount to anything more than an unsupported POV.  The editor states:
*Main article is “sprawling” and is “38 kilobytes long.”  Fact:  the proposed article contains 2,472  words, not including subsections or citation references, and the main article has 2,098 words.  As of today, the main article’s edit page states it is 31 kilobytes long, an acceptable length.  Surely, the proposed article is "sprawling" given this reasoning.
*Main article has “too many footnotes.”  Fact: as of today, the proposed article has 50 source citations (18 external, 26 external links to articles written by Gonzalez, 4 external audio links, and 2 further reading links).  The main article contains 57 citations.  It should be noted, the number of citations in the main article are the result of that editor’s NPOV claim and to demonstrate its content is supported by a number of verifiable, secondary sources.  If the editor believes 57 citations are "too many" for an article being challenged for a point of view, seven fewer citations in an unchallenged article should be held to the same level of criticism.
*Main article is “poorly written...filled with factual errors...weighed down with POVs, editorializing, unneeded detail, too many footnotes, and numerous grammatical errors.”  Fact: a POV the editor has not supported with specific examples.  
* ”...(much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian).”  Fact: no examples are cited.
* " Eighty percent of the citations are to one place -- the SF Bay Guardian."  Fact: let the article’s Works cited section show the SF Bay Guardian was cited a whopping 14 times, and San Francisco Chronicle cited 18 times.  Combined, citations from both sources make up slightly more than half of the total number used - 32 of 57. Rasax 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing the main and proposed articles