Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:56, 12 April 2007.

Ronald Reagan[edit]

previous FAC

'One more for The Gipper'.
No treatment of his stance on the War for the Independence of Vietnam. No family picture showing any of his children. No picture showing his HUAC appearance, 'Time for Choosing' speech, war film propaganda activities, military service, first wife, or more-acclaimed film performances (Bedtime for Bonzo, King's Row). Otherwise brilliant. Only question for me is whether there is full compliance to WP style and referencing standards - which I've not looked into. There's a couple of 'citation needed' tags.

In Socialism,
ĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to hear from Happyme22, who is working very hard on the article at present for a future FA review, as to whether this article is ready yet. I suspect he/she is not aware of this FAC and there seems to be some sockpuppet issue concerning the current nominator. I recommend this review be suspended, not least because the nominator admits that the article lacks citations in key places.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy object, per recently-failed FAC. Article is still at peer review, undergoing work, not ready for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editor passed GA and nominated FAC as a new account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recommend closing this FAC without prejudice - a new user who passed this article for GA as their 9th-11th edits and nominated it for FA on their 23rd, may not actually have consulted with any of the hard-working editors on that page, whose time this may waste as much as ours. There is some privately expressed concern that the user is a sock of someone presently under a one-month block for, among other things, disruption at WP:GAC. Orderinchaos 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Zleitzen(talk) said, I was not aware of the FAC nomination. I think it's sockpuppetry, and I'd close this FAC. Happyme22 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Raul, the FAC Manager, and I think he will agree with us. Personally, I would like to nominate it for FAC, because I've done A LOT to Reagan's page, but I will admit that it's not quite ready yet. Happyme22 03:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent six hours yesterday cleaning up the biggest referencing mess I've ever worked on; it's very far from ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Unstable and (still) POV, although the editors are dilligently working on this, I know. Awadewit 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen no indications of instability, rather neglect. A concerted and sustained effort would be needed to bring this article from its current state to featured status, and that's not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might take a look at the history. Notice that the lead has been changing quite a bit in recent days and on April 3 there was a minor tussle over it (I was a part of that). I'm not sure that the lead issues have been worked out yet, either (see talk page). If an article's lead isn't even stable, I don't think the article itself can qualify as stable. I might mention I tried to do what you are suggesting ("concerted and sustained effort") with regards to the lead but gave up rather quickly (again, see talk page). Awadewit 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Sorry but there is a large ammout of POV present in this article. Like this line "Reagan survived a few scandals during his presidency, the most notable being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986." survived? that sounds like a weasel word there it would be better "faced" or confronted". -凶 05:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent six hours in the article yesterday, and while I made no content edits, I found a lot of Reagan-bashing and Reagan-bashing sources. It seems to me that some reviewers are confusing poor prose and poor copyediting with POV, and the POV pushing is occurring equally on the Reagan bashing and Reagan praising sides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have consistently found one of the biggest problems of the article to be its sources, but I cannot convince the editors to read the excellent academic sources in their own bibliography. (This is relevant to the point I made a few weeks ago the FAC talk page; I think you (SandyGeorgia) and I agree on the need for the highest quality of sources, which has not yet been achieved in this article, unfortunately.) Awadewit 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wasn't this FAC to be closed up? Reagan isn't ready yet! Happyme22 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ronald_Reagan/archive4&oldid=1078805804"