Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Read my lips: no new taxes

Read my lips: no new taxes

Self nom. Has been through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. My one quibble is I would prefer a larger version of Image:Read my lips.jpeg.jpg, though it is a good size for the main page. - SimonP 22:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the above image you asked about, I would try to explain on why we have to use this fair use image. Zach (Sound Off) 22:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - SimonP 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense of making this a comprehensive article, I would suggest that even more important than the image is to have the relevant soundbite (I'd even support putting a link to the sound clip on the main page in preference to the image). Somebody should create an ogg file containing the quote; no, the external link to an mp3 of the speech does not count.
- I have uploaded the ogg clip and filled out the fair use tag for it: Image:George_Bush_1988_No_New_Taxes.ogg. Zach (Sound Off) 00:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks. I wouldn't have known how to do this myself. - SimonP 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems to contain the entirety of the speech after the quote, some 14 minutes. Would it be possible to cut this? - SimonP 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I still need to stick it in the article itself, your quite welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 01:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~It is just the entire quote. Zach (Sound Off) 02:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)~~ My goof. I cut the sound byte down some more, and it only has the quote now. Zach (Sound Off) 02:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        At 1:18, it's still a bit longer than strictly necessary, I think. I would suggest cutting at least another 30 seconds or so off the beginning, which is mostly crowd noise, up until Bush launches into, "My opponent now says..." --Michael Snow 05:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixing it now. Zach (Sound Off) 17:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Now 40 seconds, perfect. --Michael Snow 04:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the content, I think the article falls short in covering the pledge and how it is viewed historically. While it touches on the dissension that resulted among Republican ranks when the pledge was broken, the article basically seems to assume that it did have to be broken. Practically speaking, with a Democratic-controlled Congress, perhaps no other course was available. But leaving aside the political dynamics, purely as a matter of policy I think there is a significant division of views among US conservatives today about whether Bush's mistake was that he shouldn't have made the pledge, or that he shouldn't have raised taxes. Expanding on the fiscal issues that got Bush into his predicament, and the controversy surrounding Gramm-Rudman, would help set the stage better. --Michael Snow 00:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I had implied the differing opinions, but this was somewhat hidden at the end of the 1992 section. I have made the views more explicit, and given them their own section. I added a bit more about what the alternatives were, and a quote by Bush himself stating that he should have pursued them. I'm reluctant to get into the causes of the mess because they are hugely controversial, and giving the issue fair coverage would take the article off on a considerable tangent about the legacy of Reagan's fiscal policy. This should perhaps be covered in Late 1980s recession, which I have linked more prominently. - SimonP 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. --Michael Snow 05:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Phils 19:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support Looks great. Tuf-Kat 21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I was a little boy when Bush 41 said this, I hear and use this line every so often when growing up. I am glad I was able to help in a small way. Zach (Sound Off) 17:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Pamri • Talk 03:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everyking 04:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the suggestion that it should appear on the main page November 8. --Michael Snow 04:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The capitalization of the article's title ("Read my lips: no new taxes") is inconsistent with the capitalization of the term within the article ("Read my lips: No new taxes"). I would prefer to see the capitalization be more consistent. I think that the titular usage is more correct. Pburka 02:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed and fixed. - SimonP 02:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. On a careful re-reading of the article, I support its candidacy for FA status. Pburka 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]