Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan/archive1

Ronald Reagan

I have nominated this article as I feel it meets the required criteria for FAC. Highly concise and comprehensive depiction of his life. Not a 'self-nom'. Rdysn5 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • "Is noted for a 25% cut in the income tax..." The U.S. has a progressive income tax structure, not a flat tax, so what does the 25% figure refer to?
  • "and, in 1976, said "fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." Citation?
  • "Reagan remembered that his father had refused to take him to the movie "Birth of a Nation", because of its racist stereotypes. When Ronald was young, his father did not want to stay in a certain hotel because they did not accept Jews; his only alternative was to sleep in his car." Citations?
  • "due to the party's hard-line stance against communism." Citation? (For this being the reason he changed his party, that is. Obviously the anti-Communist stance of the GOP does not to be cited.)
  • "Reagan made it clear that the policies of his administration would not be influenced by student preferences, saying "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with, no more appeasement." Citation?
  • "Reagan suggested that it would be a good time for an outbreak of botulism." Citation?
  • External links need to be converted to inline citations.
  • " eliciting protests from Democrats." Which ones?
  • "The House of Representatives, with a Democratic majority, opposed slowing the growth of social welfare spending" Spending on which programs, specifically?
  • I pretty much stopped reading there. This article isn't really that far from featured status, but it needs someone, or preferably a few people, to improve the prose and to crack the listed sources so the quotes, etc., can be cited. Andrew Levine 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object- no inline citations. The lead should be condensed into three paragraphs at most, according to WP:LEAD. In addition, at 80kb, I wouldn't call this article "highly concise", and I think the length of the article should be cut down a little and moved into subpages. AndyZ 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Very bad example of Summary style when the section that is supposed to be a 'summary' of a daughter article is longer than the daughter article. Off load much of the detail to the daughter article and leave a real summary here. A great many inline cites are needed as well. --mav 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the same reasons, a re-shuffle should be easy, the prose is great --PopUpPirate 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support very NPOV for such a controversial figure. Well done. God example of what we can do here.Gator (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object – I think this is a good, generally well written and NPOV article with the makings of a featured article, but I found the organization to be completely haphazard. The sections like "appointments", "honors", "coinage", "Regan documentries", "Nicknames" and other chaff should be offloaded into other articles, the Presidency section needs a leader, religious beliefs perhaps shouldn't be its own short section but should be merged into the rest of the article... That, and someone needs to have a go at referencing. –Joke 17:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two editors (including me) have noted on the talk page that the information about the Bitburg cemetery visit seems to be incorrect. No one has addressed this concern, nor cited support for Wikipedia's version of the story. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 17:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object. Cjmarsicano 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please include a rationale for your objection? AndyZ 00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This might give tyou some insight into his rationale. [1].Gator (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess that's a null vote, then --PopUpPirate 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your comments. I suppose a peer review for the article would help immensely. Rdysn5 06:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I see nothing wrong with either the length of the intro, or the article itself. In fact, the intro is roughly the same length as the Bill Clinton article, and shorter than the Jimmy Carter article. Rmt2m 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object. This article has major, major POV issues. Either include criticism of Reagan's policies, or stick to the facts, but don't include the arguments of supporters and then ignore critics. Most egregious is the ra-ra tone of the discussion of supply side economics (with only a couple phrases of criticism buried in a mountain of praise), as well as discussion in the intro of his role in the dissolution of the USSR (probably the two issues by which he defined his presidency). There are so many other examples of POV, though. How does an encyclopedia article not mention the very common charge that Reagan was suffering from the early effects of Alzheimers through most of his presidency, which had a big impact on how his administration was run? For someone this controversial, it would be best to more explicitly acknowledge the positions of critics and supporters. Very un-encyclopedic. Also, it's pretty badly written (so repetitive) and confusingly organized. Basically, it's a train wreck. Aroundthewayboy 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)