Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Trump/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2019 [1].

Donald Trump edit

Nominator(s): Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...Donald Trump Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I am nominating this article for a few reasons. Reason 1 is because the article is detailed, but not too much detail. Anothr reason is because there is great grammer, and it is high quality. There is also professional grade writing and citations for this article. For these reasons, and because it does meet criteria, I nominate this article for Featured article status. Thanks. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Lee Vilenski

I thought articles that were page protected were not viable for GA or FA due to not being stable? This page has extended confirmed page protection. Is that wrong?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. With two edits to the article (one in 2016, one today) this falls outside the limitations of someone who has worked in the article, or who has asked the main writer(s). - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:Protected articles can be raised at FAC; stability is about whether the content changes so quickly so that you cannot really review it.

I know that people will vociferously disagree with me on this point but I don't think we can call this article "unstable" without majorly stretching the scope of that criterium as while a lot of edits happen very few of them amount to big changes; all edits in August, all edits in July edits in June - only a very small part of the text changed during each month - and since all big changes are extensively discussed it is arguably more stable than the average article. As precedent, major quickly updating topics like India or Barack Obama are both FA, the latter for the whole duration of the presidency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if memory serves someone did already propose nominating this for FAC on the talk page and most replies were sceptical at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should give this more thought, but I'm going to go ahead and oppose. No article about our current stable genius is going to be stable enough for FAC to work as advertised. Sooner or later, it's going to blow up on us. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had to check the calendar: April 1st already? But it needs serious work to approach FA standard. Its refs need shedloads of work, MOS issues (e.g. overlinking) and per SC, the nominator has not previously invested in the article: I assume this is connected to [2] and [3]... ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the nominator is not a substantial contributor to the article (as already pointed out by SchroCat). Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but compared to even George W. Bush, this article needs substantial work even reaching GA, let alone FA. Issues with sourcing, prose, stability and imaging are abundant. If you're genuinely interested in having this article promoted, I'd suggest WP:GA would be the more appropriate venue. May also be a good idea to study precedent—by which I mean Ronald Reagan's article, which is infinitely better than Trump's. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even close to ready... @WP:FAC coordinators: could someone please close this? Noah^Talk 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- tks for the ping, Noah; I managed to miss this among the flurry of other noms the past couple of days, and being placed at the end of the new nom queue didn't help. Procedural close if nothing else and, per some advice above, definitely one for GA/PR before FAC in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.