Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 00:58, 11 May 2010 [1].

Harry S. Truman[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Harry S. Truman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Dominus, Americasroof and Gadget850 (most active users who have edited lately), and Rlevse (FA nominator in 2007). WikiProject Biography, WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WikiProject Cold War and WikiProject Politics.

I am nominating this featured article for review. I haven't scrutinized it thoroughly, and I don't have any experience with the FAC or FAR process, really. But it obviously fails criterion 1c.

  • The first paragraph in section "Family, education and early business career" is unsourced.
done. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Freemasonry" is mostly unsourced.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large parts of the section "Hereditary memberships" are unsourced, including one direct quote.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the section "Jackson County judge" are unsourced.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "First term" under "U.S. Senator" is mostly unsourced.
Done — Rlevse • Talk • 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Assuming office" is mostly unsourced.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the section "United Nations, Marshall Plan and the Cold War" are unsourced.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some paragraphs in the section "Election of 1948" have few or no references.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections "Second term (1949–1953)", "NATO" and "People's Republic of China" are mostly unsourced, there is a dispute tag in the latter section.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the section "Korean War" are unsourced.
done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section " Assassination attempt" is mostly unsourced, though there is a more-details-link.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paragraph in the section "1952 election" is unsourced.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two paragraphs in the section "Truman Library, Memoirs, and life as a private citizen". Also, there is a one-sentence paragraph. Also there are many one-sentence paragraphs in the section "Legacy".
Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Later life and death" is mostly unsourced.
Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the reference list:

  • Ref 166 is badly formatted. Is it dubious as well?
That now seems to be 167, replaced it, worked other refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many external links?
Deleted NNDB, which to me is not reliable. Others seem okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note about the first paragraph:

  • It unnecessarily repeats the detail about Shippe and Solomon.
Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that when it was promoted, this was for no real reason, other than that "Several editors have recently worked hard [...] the prose size is 58k; and the article size is 108k, about the size of the FA on Gerald Ford", and various exclaims on its perceived quality. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten. Cant argue with that. Dont the the whole article needs to get scrapped. Is anyone monitoring this article for questionable editing or it got the star based on whats here now? Meishern (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was promoted 3 years ago, so it was different then. It does not need to get scrapped. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, which should disqualify it as a FA:

  • That he was rehabilitated at one point falls far short of the outrageous claim in the introduction "Most American historians consider Truman one of the greatest U.S. Presidents" which is nowhere supported in the article.
  • Although the reader could infer Truman's and temper from some of the quotes, the famous incident where he threatened the Washington Post's music critic is not mentioned.
Just added it, with quotes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that his "executive order, in 1948, desegregated the Armed Forces" is wildly inaccurate and misleading.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This FA can be saved. You're wrong about his Exec Order and the Armed Forces, it did desegregate the Armed Forces. If it didn't, what are you claiming did do it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order announced a Presidential intent to treat persons in the armed services equally, and it authorized a board to investigate the matter. Business as usual ensued, while the supporters of segregation conducted a long rearguard action. The board reported in December 1949. Integration did eventually follow, but the Army continued to maintain segregated units until 1954. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Do you think desegregation in an organization that big would happen overnight? The fact remains it would not have happened without his EO. The majority of units were desegregated a few years prior to 1954. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article should make this clear for readers who might not understand the subject in the detail that we do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK with, can you rework those parts? —

Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also added some material about Harry and historians. I replaced your link with one to the actual poll. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody monitored it for 3 years maybe it needs to loose the star. Or revert all the way back to edit when the star was given. Its just in its present form, I don't think this article deserves accolades. Meishern (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to wait til the FAR is over. This FA is salvageable. Hopefully someone besides me will put a significant effort into it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll be willing to put in effort to save Truman. However, it's currently quite late, and I will be calling it a night. If I don't drop by on Friday/Saturday, drop a message on my talk page and I'll help. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HUH? The refs have ALL been fixed and no one critcized the prose. Would you care to explain yourself? Plus Hawkeye7's last comment was "Looks okay now". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When moving to FARC, the delegates simply restate concerns raised during the FAR; concerns were raised about sourcing and prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were no concerns about prose and since what was raised was fixed why are we moving to FARC? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please read what I wrote above. Those criteria were brought up in the FAR section - I (and YellowMonkey, when he moves reviews) list them here as a starting point for reviewers listing keep/delist declarations. One of the commenters wrote "Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten.", which I took to mean that they thought the prose needed work. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with any of the comments, just that they were mentioned in the previous section. The review was moved here because there was not a clear consensus by multiple uninvolved editors that the review should be closed prior to the FARC section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten" is a prose concern; articles move to FARC unless there are declarations to close. It is *not* a big deal; just the way it works. In the future, Dana might ping editors to ask if the article is in keep territory and a FARC can be avoided, but please be kind to the new delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy - I'll keep that in mind for the future. Pinging editors before moving to FARC hadn't even crossed my mind (I don't know why, it just didn't!); I guess I'm more used to needing to ping editors for articles down at the bottom of the list. For what it's worth, I've mentioned this article to a couple of editors in an attempt to get it quickly moved through the FARC process, and I know Dabomb has pinged a couple of others. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of it was rewritten. Thank you everyone for wasting my time. Next time I come across a FAR I'll ignore it and let it flounder instead of trying to be productive. You said "prose" and that is only mentioned in ref to its state 3 years ago. As for rewriting did you both to read it? Most people haven't even bothered to comment on it's current state. Again, sorry I wasted my time trying to fix this, I won't make the mistake again. He should consider the work and those who wasted hours on this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, you're overreacting to a normal part of the process: articles automatically move to FARC unless there is clear consensus not to-- reviewers enter Keep or Delist declarations at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. It should not even have been moved to FARC. The concerns were clearly met. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't matter, because people will !vote to keep the article anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be here at this point anyway, so it does matter. At any rate, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Rlevse that this article's issues were addressed. The article has much better sourcing, and the referencing was ironed out. I'm not a regular at FAN or FAR but it seems counterproductive to have a time period for mistakes to be missed, and when the editor bringing them up says all is well to move it into a bureaucratic three week vote. I understand that you guys are new, but I certainly see where Rlevse is coming from. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the editor that created this FAR never returned to re-review the article. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. I made the assumption the user heading the critique nommed it, but that was not the case. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks alright. Referenced well from legitimate sources. POV is not blatantly partisan. There are a few minor things that could be rewritten or rephrased in my opinion, but nothing major sticks out to warrant deletion of this article. Needs a bit of polishing, thats all. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work
    • The history channel is a massive joke. Should not be used when professors' books are available
    • Ditto for Global Security, not great when textbooks are available about Mao and PRC.
    • Books in footnotes 140-142 are used about a dozen times and have no page numbers. So are 136, 165 and maybe some more. They are needed for verification
    • Use of FDR everywhere, even a "n't" in main prose
    • hyphens in page ranges
    • I think the prose gets too dramatic, expecially in describing the 1952 election, with the strong adjectives, making it sound like sports commentary hyperbole
  • More importantly, the content of this article seems questionable.
    • I checked the Vietnam section, and the statement about HCM re-declaring indept in 1950 isn't in the source (almost all of the paragraph is not in the source, which in any case seems to be an unofficial review which can be sourced with scholarly books) and sounds dubious. The statement implying that France had almost all the territory is wrong, and talking about increasing aid to, and supporting an indept VN is ambiguous as the only Vietnamese govt previously mentioned is the communist one. Presumably it meant the French-backed State of Vietnam; And did the US pay the SoV or the French Army? Part about VJ Day is ambiguous as the VJ Day article says that there are three of them (in this case, sept 2)
    • More generally, China, VN and Korea are treated piecemeal; domino theory and linkages between the three aren't touched on and word domino isn't even touched. Content is ad hoc
    • Bit about NH primary repeated.
  • Undue weight
    • Sections on his middle name, his "hereditary memberships" as well as some parts of early life are very much larger than the sections on Vietnam and China, which seems questionable, especially as the "losing China" accusations dogged Truman a lot. But it only has 2-3 lines. In contrast, Pakistani recognition is bigger than VN and China put together. The section on Truman having a rant at a journalist for criticising his daughter's singing, and the renovation of the white house are also larger than these two sections. What makes these more important than Cold War powerplays?
    • Tech specs of atomic bombs and their etymology given in detail, but controversies over Supreme Court not explained except to vaguely say that they were criticised

In general, the content/focus of the article doesn't appear convincing to me. The density of ambiguities and errors in the one section that I follow a bit, makes me suspicious about the preparation that went into the content of the rest of the article. I'm going to ask for some other opinions from people who follow big-picture Cold War politics of the 1940s and 1950s YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Definately not a bad article, but there are a few issues that I feel need to be addressed.
    • I think I've fixed the issue with the endashes for page ranges;
    • I agree with YellowMonkey's concerns (see above) about some of the citations not having page numbers;
    • Citation # 24 (Chronological Record of the 129th Field Artillery), needs an access date; as does # 26 (Capt. Harry Truman & Battery D);
    • I'm a little confused about what is included in the References list and what is not. McCullough is cited in Notes, but not in References, so is Eisler. So my question is, what is the style that is being used, what is the criteria for inclusion?;
    • Footnote # 95 ("There is reason to believe the Japanese...") needs a reference, as it is providing information but doesn't indicate its sourcing;
    • Some sources are consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, but others are not (for example 41 and 42 "Branded as Rebels";
    • Some of the websites do not have publisher details (for example Citation #244: Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs - I think the publisher should be University of Missouri);
    • In the References section, the Neal work needs an ISBN;
    • I feel that there's undue weight on the issue of Truman's middle name/initial, indeed it completely unbalances the Personal life section IMO;
    • In the Hereditary memberships section the prose is choppy. For example, the first section begins with Truman, then the second sentence begins with "Harry S. Truman". It would be smoother if it were reversed;
    • Later in the Hereditary memberships section, Truman is refered to as "Harry" which seems a bit informal to me, but then later "President Harry Truman" and "President Truman" which seems overly formal;
    • A citation is needed after the last sentence in the 1940 election section: "It was the turning point of his political career";
    • A citation is needed after the last sentence of the Defense policy statements section: "The remark was the first";
    • First sentence of Vice presidency section needs a citation;
    • In the Vice presidency section, this paragraph needs a citation: "Truman's candidacy was humorously dubbed the second..."
    • In the Assuming office section, the term "wheel chair-bound" should be hyphenated, but has an endash, which is not consistent with WP:DASH;
    • In the Recognition of Israel section, the emdashes are incorrectly spaced, per WP:DASH they should be unspaced;
    • There is some inconsistency in abbrievations, for example "US" and "U.S." (example in Pakistan section);
    • the names in the Judicial appointments section need citations;
    • the sentence on Other courts section needs a citation;
    • the last part of the third paragraph of the Legacy section needs a citation: "the early and mid-1970s, Truman captured..." — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I think there are numerous problems with this article: it's far too long, parts are rather poorly written, and it seems to have only a passing acquaintance with the MoS. It needs work, best done elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The weight given various topics needs adjustment. Israel is covered in so much greater detail than any other aspect of Truman's political life. There is also disproportionate detail about nonpolitical aspects of the his life, including an extended section on "Hereditary memberships." By contrast, containment and the Truman Doctrine get only passing mention. There is a section on China, but no indication of why this is relevant to Truman's life. (The reason being that many Americans saw WWII as a war to save China, so "Who lost China?" was a powerful political issue, leading to McCarthyism and so forth.) Also, I don't notice any analysis of Truman's psychology or character. Deborah Larson does a good job of this Origins of Containment. (Her analysis is that Truman was extraordinarily anxious to be seen as strong and decisive, hence his tendency to make surprising "snap" decisions.) I'd cut the section on Pakistan; You could have a section like this about almost any country. The stuff about Indochina is confused. Ho Chi Minh issued his declaration of independence as soon as he arrived Hanoi. That this was also VJ Day is just coincidence. Truman decided to back France in Indochina immediately after the Korean War broke out. The article misunderstands "containment" as hardline anti-communism, but Truman's thinking was more complicated than this, as his reaction to the Communist takeover in China illustrates. Kauffner (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Why is the long paragraph on his middle initial in the "personal life" section? It's bordering on trivia IMHO; I think most of it should be in a note or somewhere else.
    • "Both men were ti have a profound influence on Truman's later life." -- "ti"? (to)
    • Otherwise the article looks pretty good, though a few paragraphs are missing cites at the end. I'll try to do a reference check soon. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm inclined to vote to delist (YellowMonkey asked me to look over the article because of my interest in politics of that era), and will note some concerns.
POV. By separating the two discussions of American communism, and by lumping McCarthy, Nixon, and so forth into a single paragraph, there is a certain amount of implicit POV that Truman was opposed to McCarthy and Nixon, and to some extent a victim of the red scare. Go look at Truman's, and Attorney General McGrath's statements from that era.
The "fur coat" scandal is underplayed. Most of the fur coats did not involve the IRS, this is a segue I doubt you'll find in the sources. These were big news all through the last years of the Truman administration, and surely deserve more space than his army buddy being knocked for bumping a wounded veteran from a flight. Ever wonder why Nixon said in the Checkers speech that his wife didn't have a mink coat? Well, she didn't, but it was a swipe at the Truman scandals.
Why all the one paragraph sections? They break up the prose and should be merged into broader topics.
I'm rather troubled by the legacy section. "revisionist historians began attacking Truman" is rather a POV statement and also undetailed. Suggest using similar language and attention as the pro-Truman historians, naming the most prominent adherants.
I'll be back with more later, but it may have to wait until Monday. This would not pass as a FA today, but it's maybe salvagable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the last point: I added this because the article originally falsely claimed that Truman is held in high esteem by historians. I can improve this part along the lines you suggest, by bringing in more material from the references I already cited. which provide ample deetail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got more, but I'll wait until initial comments are replied to/dealt with. I'll enter a vote to Delist pending further action.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Harry_S._Truman/archive1&oldid=1138477082"