Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Inauguration of Barack Obama

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the recent WP:FAC resulted in the feeling a PR was needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: I read the FAC and agree with most of the comments there. In fact I would treat the FAC comments as a very detailed initial peer review. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the number one problem with the article is its length. I think that is why this has languished in peer review until now - it is so long that it is hard to review. The length also makes it hard to make sure that all of the little things are done correctly - the FAC mentioned inconsistencies in refs, for example.
    • In terms of WP policy, it is far short of a size that WP:SIZE or WP:SPLITTING would suggest splitting. As the page creator, I did not intend for the article to approach this size. I had very modest aspirations of user involvement when I started the article and then the article took on a life of its own. I don't think the size is a result of extraneous minutia. It is a function of contributions of relevant details for an event that spanned several days and endured worldwide media attention. This is the first inauguration of the WP era and there is no precedent for what is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone's feedback is valuable because this article is more than just a single article. In a sense it is a template design for future Presidential Inaugurations and perhaps some improvements to past ones. Aaron charles (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length also makes it hard to tell a story and have smooth flow, as does the relatively large number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. These should be combined with others wherever possible, or very rarely perhaps expanded.
    • This is certainly a problem with a bunch of people coming by and sticking in a sentence here and a sentence there. We'll see what we can do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really try to use WP:Summary style and condense things down as much as possible. Only include detail if it is really important. As one example, look at the International attention section. The Americas sections mentions Barbados, a city in Guatemala, and Canada. Nothing about Mexico or any South American nation? What are the criteria for inclusion here? Why is it important what Barbados did? What about nations that don't have good relations with the US like Cuba or Venezuela? Australia is a staunch US ally but is not mentioned, but the Solomon Islands are? Why? It looks like this is what was found on Google, more than a coherent story. My guess is this whole section could be boiled down to two or three paragraphs. Remember the article is about the Inauguration, so keep the focus there.
    • There seem to be many secondary sources citing foreign leaders and scholars about their reactiosn to the inauguration. Since when are wikipedia articles judged by what is missing. It is very rare that things are judged in that way. Obviously if any G-20 nation is left out there will be something to gripe about, but that does not really seem to be the right way to approach things. The article is approaching 58KB, which is still below the 60KB point at which splitting becomes an issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length also makes it hard to avoid repetition - in the section on balls, does it really need to repeat January 20, 2009 TWELVE times? Or repeat Walter Washington Convention Center EIGHT times (6 balls, twice in photos).
    • Length is not an excuse for repetition. That is probably the proper way to shorten the article. I'll refiew rfor repetition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language really needs to be cleaned up - one paragraph chosen at semi-random: The Neighborhood Inaugural Ball, held on January 20, 2009 at the Walter Washington Convention Center, the first stop of the night for both President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. At the Neighborhood Ball, Michelle Obama revealed her inaugural ball gown for the first time. The Obamas later danced their first song as Beyoncé serenaded them with her rendition of the Etta James classic, At Last.[116] I have already pointed out the date and hall repetitions (if this section were in paragraphs instead of bullet lists, there could be one paragraph on the six balls held at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. Even here, we get the name of ball twice, "first stop of the night" and "for the first time" as another repeat of sorts, and "The Obamas danced their first song" - huh? If I recall correctly, the Neighborhood Ball was for people from DC, but this is not mentioned. Why not just The Neighborhood Inaugural Ball, one of six held at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, was the President and First Lady's initial stop. It marked the first appearance of Michelle Obama's inaugural ball gown and the Obamas' first dance, as Beyoncé sang the Etta James classic, At Last.[116] Plus add something on the ball being for DC residents (or whatever)
  • I would also look at WP:WEIGHT issues - there is less on the concert at the Lincoln Memorial: "We Are One", which the Obamas attended, than there is on French or British parties and news coverage and reaction. There is aboiut the same space )a little less text) on the flubbed oath and retake as there is on the Inaugural Address. History really focuses on Inagural Addresses (FDR Fear Itself, Kennedy's Ask not what your country can do for you, Lincoln's immortal second inaugural) so I would spend more on this that just about anything else.
  • Well, "We Are One" jumps to a separate article. FAC was suggesting not to list all the celebs, so the split makes sense and has been agreed by the editors. Unlike FDR, Obama's inaugural address did not have memorable lines, which is noted in the article. Here, the full address is linked to video, audio and transcript files. Aaron charles (talk)
  • Why is there a section on Unofficial events, all but two of which have the word "ball" in the title, and also a section on Unofficial balls? Could these be combined?
  • The two sections are based on chronology: one group occurred before, the other after. Yes, they could be combined, and we could get three birds with one stone (combined, shorter length, weight balance). I suggest we combine and move them out into "List of Inauguration of Obama Unofficial Events". Besides shorter, I think it will make the article easier to read. Aaron charles (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD on not repeating the article title or section headers if possible - the "Viewership" section does not need a "Television viewership" subsection, just "Television" would work (already know the voewership part)
  • Agree. Changed "viewership" to "audience", which is better on several levels. Aaron charles (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice pics, but I agree that less is more. I am also so jealous you got to go!
  • Agree. I suggest we remove the second We Are one pic, could remove parade pic of just limos, pic of directional signs at ball, trim a few other ball pics, remove one from crowd section, and remove FBI pic from security section. Aaron charles (talk)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama/archive1&oldid=1078798237"