Talk:Mike Hudema

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Alberta / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Mike Hudema was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
Date	Process	Result
January 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
February 18, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Conflict disclosure

I just want to disclose at this point that I am in a potential conflict of interest, as I know Mike reasonably well. I believe that, in writing this article, I have adhered completely to User:Uncle G's [on writing about subjects close to you] (which isn't policy, but which is damned good advice). That said, now that I've created the article I won't make any contentious edits to it; I will participate in any debates on this talk page, however. Sarcasticidealist 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold comments

I think this article is definitely viable for GA, just a few things...

The lead section does not summarize the text of the article completely. A paragraph or two would be appropriate. The sentence currently there would be a good start for the paragraph, just a few more details should be added, as I did not get a very full picture of the article's subject. (See here).
A more detailed method of citation is recommended at WP:CITE here. As many of the URLs cited here are news articles, it seems appropriate to use the news citation method. Citation templates like {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} might be useful. The article is very well footnoted, it's just the citations themselves are not very thorough.
There are a number of short sections (starting with "Anti-war activism) that might be better suited to a consolidated paragraph or two, perhaps under the heading of "Other activism." If there is more information in these sections that simply hasn't been added, then of course my opinion would change.
Though this isn't required for a GA, it seems to me that many of the images might be better suited if they were smaller, as they are (to my eyes) disrupting the article's text in some places.

Kakofonous (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a 24 hour extension on this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That sounds fine. Kakofonous (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've incorporated the changes you suggested, but please let me know if there's anything further that I should do (whether to meet GA standards or for any other reason). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is now of GA quality. Kakofonous (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Definitely.

2. Factually accurate?: So many sources! Sorry I made you go through all of the citations and reformat them.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Great choices, all of them free.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA status

Too many citations needed and a general choppyness to the prose (single sentence paragraphs, diary entry format etc). Needs some love if it is to not be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

There's lots of uncited statements in the article, including several subsequent paragraphs
The article doesn't have much information post-2014.
The lead does not summrise all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Mike Hudema

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several paragraphs of uncited text, this BLP doesn't have post-2014 information, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No significant edits to address concerns, last edit to the article was in September. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, not because of the lack of post-2014 information (a quick Google search suggests Hudema hasn't done a whole lot the last 10 years) but due to sourcing issues. Two of the CN tags apparently predate 2010. Large chunks of the article are sourced to the University of Alberta's student newspaper, which I don't think should be considered fully independent here given his advocacy work with the university's student union. Several of the other sources are affiliated with advocacy campaigns Hudema was associated with. Hog Farm _Talk 03:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.