Talk:William Owen Bush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWilliam Owen Bush was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 20, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first law prohibiting racial discrimination in Washington state theaters and restaurants was introduced in 1890 by William Owen Bush?

This article[edit]

What a beautifully written and well-presented article this is. It is a gem. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, P123ct1! DocumentError (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Owen Bush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rationalobserver (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi RationalObserver, User:DocumentError is currently unable to edit so I thought I'd jump in and address a few of these. Reyk YO! 18:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea. DE has been permablocked for refusing to answer a question they regard as beneath their dignity, and the blocking admin is not responding to pings. So my guess is "never". I just thought it would be a shame to see a GA nomination fail because two stubborn people won't budge an inch. Reyk YO! 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why you can't replace them as nom, but I hope it's not against any rules pertaining to indeffed users. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Reyk. Per this advice, I'm happy to continue with the GAN. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reyk, you haven't commented here in nine days, so, unless you participate, I'm going to fail the GAN as "abandoned" on February 17, which would be fourteen days since your last comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Looks good

Early life[edit]

  • who inherited a portion of the substantial fortune of his father, Matthew.
It's best to have a citation at the end of each paragraph
  • When are where was he born? I can figure the year from, In 1844, at the age of 12, but I think it would be better to include it in the first sentence.
  • William Owen Bush's ancestry has been the subject of some confusion. While he self-identified as African-American, and was described in contemporary accounts as a negro, Bush's father, George Washington Bush, was of mixed race, while his mother was of German descent.
What exactly is there confusion about?
  • You should mention his mother, Isabella James, by name here.

Agriculture[edit]

  • In 1859 William Owen Bush married a widow, Mandana Kimsey,
I think you should be using only Bush after the first section, unless there is need to disambiguate because when mentioning several with the same surname.
  • and established his own farm
I would swap out his own for a.

Politics[edit]

  • He was elected to the legislature a second time
Was this a re-election, or did he serve, then take some time in the public sector, then serve again?

Death[edit]

  • He was 74, so I assume he died of old age, but this it not that clear in the article.

Miscellaneous[edit]

  • You've listed three children in the infobox, but they are not mentioned in the prose, which is really two points, because 1) you shouldn't have anything that's not common knowledge in the infobox if it's not detailed in the prose, and 2) you should mention his children in the article.
  • ISBNs should be 13-digit; you have a couple that are 10.

Conclusion[edit]

The article is well-written, verifiable, neutral, and stable. The scope of coverage; however, is not great. Maybe there is little more known of Bush, but please make sure you aren't neglecting any good sources.

Minor bit of ambiguity[edit]

I just left an edit summary saying it's not clear whether the "he himself" in "However, he himself identified..." refers to George or his grandfather. I meant to say it's not clear whether the "he himself" in "However, he himself identified..." refers to William or his grandfather. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]