Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt edit

Article is still a featured article.

This article, while comprehensive compared to some of our other presidential articles, still lacks many things that would probably prevent it from being promoted if it was nominated today. For starters, there are no in-line citations, and several places are tagged as "citation needed", including a direct quote from another source. Second, there are some areas that need to be re-formatted, such as the inclusion of two external links inside the text, and also inconsistent headers ("Later Life" v. "Personal life"). In addition, the last three major sections - "In popular culture", "Quotes", and "Trivia" are simply lists of information. "Trivia" needs to be incorporated into the article, and "in popular culture" should be made into prose, at the very least, and "quotes" should be moved to Wikiquotes. Finally, the article (and the "main" articles it links to, such as The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) lack mention of many important events, such as the Roosevelt Corollary (which I just added to The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt but isn't mentioned yet in the article.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, this article's featured on the main page today. However, it's been significantly improved since I last looked at it (good work, Johnleemk and others), and is acceptable now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! 3 supports and 1 object in September got this featured? Too few people looking at it, IMO. At one time I was helping to expand this to featured status but stopped half way through his presidency. When I have time I will look at my sources and add references and fill some missing gaps (not too much - this article is already big enough). But that won't be for a while. Until then I say delist as FA. Once everything is fixed, then I will put this through a proper FAC. --mav 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with NON-inclusion. Agree 100% with suggestions. Have begun footnoting. Don't agree this should be removed as it is one of the best on-line "executive overviews" of TR that I have found on the internet. Its a great intro on TR with the photos. A great deal of useful information on TR. My personal goal is to get MORE people to learn about this amazing person. At the beginning of the 21st Century, he is almost a forgotten president. I spoke with a co-worker who was confusing him with FDR! "No TR did NOT have polio!" I agree that the article needs a lot of work. I, for one, have spent many hours adding some photos, editing the intro to fill in some information. Actually, I have spent many more hours rounding out articles on TR's father, wife, and children to make a family of articles. A good place to start is the footnoting and also I've noticed the inconsistencies with the personal life section. I suspect that's because when it was written, the article, as a whole was much smaller. Any suggestions for the so-called "perfect bio article?" The one on the recently elected Pope Benedict XVI is fairly well written. SimonATL 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was terrible as it stood a couple of hours ago, but hopefully I've managed to reorganise it and delete the overly detailed emphasis on conservationism. Half the article is cited with footnotes already, and I'll deal with the rest tomorrow -- I need sleep. I complained about the inefficient use of summary style when the article was first split out, but apparently nobody cared enough to do more than insert one paragraph back into the article, totally omitting Roosevelt's foreign policy. Let's see if we can tackle this before the week is out. Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, having completed my top-to-down rewrite, I can now say I believe should keep this article as an FA. Johnleemk | Talk 18:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To be fair, this article can be saved with a few revisions. It doesn't deserve to lose its FA status - it is a good source for information on TDR. Schizmatic
Keep as per Schiz.--Kross ^Talk 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First time voter, long time watcher. "Gettin' better all the time" - no way - take away - FA. --hydnjo talk 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schiz. Problems do not a FARC make. Staxringold 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, problems do an FARC make (otherwise, what would qualify for FARC?). However, minor problems that can be fixed are generally not considered to be sufficient for FARC. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right, that was badly worded. What I meant was that an FARC is only an article with serious issues that will take heavy rewriting and researching to fix, rather than just bits of style. Staxringold 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problems I see are very minor, i.e, some easy citings, some ammended phrases, some better phrasing, etc. My point is, it remains a quality article in spite of such very minor errors. Schizmatic 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Flcelloguy. In addition, the bulk of the references come from a grossly out of date 1919 biography, and the article fails do grapple with the extensive recent scholarly literature on the period. 172 | Talk 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]