Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

George W. Bush edit

The George W. Bush article is comprehensive, well-developed, and has made great strides in recent months. Please join me in this consideration for FA status. Hall Monitor 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Too unstable. Lot's of vandalism and there's more info in the making. Putting this on the Main Page is especially asking for vandals.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Semi-protection has helped the article a lot, so that shouldn't be as much of a concern as before. However, It might be a bad idea to put it on the Main Page... but does that affect the quality of the article? Should that affect this FAC, as there are several FAs that won't be featured on the Main Page already? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Tony Blair and Hugo Chávez have attained featured status, and I suppose the same could be argued for both of those subjects as well. Hall Monitor 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Stability" refers to good-faith edits and edit wars over content, not vandalism. Vandalism isn't an "addressable concern" so isn't a valid reason to object. Fieari 00:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't see any reason not to. I'll help out with the references (we can always use the new Cite.php format), and when that's fixed I'll support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for now, fix the references into footnotes, than I may support --Jaranda wat's sup 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support Could use some fixing, other wise is ok --Jaranda wat's sup 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is comprehensive and has improved greatly in the recent past. --Myles Long/cDc 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is currently getting a dozen edits a day, a fair few of which are reverts, and is currently semi-protected. Stability issues prevent my support. Batmanand 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Main concern: That quite a few external links are in the actual text. I'd like to see a section of footnotes replacing the inline links. Further, the section, "Health, medicine, and Social Security" is unsourced. It needs to have a written source, as in a magazine or book etc. A few sections are too short, eg: Trade, Terrorism, Missile defense & Education; although from his policies, you wouldn't be able to get much real information anyway. All the captions of the pictures need periods (full stops) after the last sentences to make them full & complete. This should be easy to do. Other than that, the article's pretty good. I'm not too worried bout vandalism, cause if we were really worried about it, we would stop the featured article section! The hardest thing on my list should be the footnoting. See other big articles to get an idea of how to do them. I'll revise my vote after these are done. Spawn Man 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, spectacularly fails the all-important stability criteria. Even if this page was never targeted by vandals and POV-pushers -- which it is, probably with more consistency than any single article -- the subject will for several years yet occupy a highly visible position of power, during which time his well-publicized deeds will surely invite massive rewrites and reorganizations on a weekly or even daily basis. Andrew Levine 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object. This article will not be anything close to stable for a long time. Daniel Case 02:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Andrew, this is a very active page with major changes to be made in the next two years. Gflores Talk 04:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I can't support FA status for an article that starts off with a self-referencing and completely irrelevant note about vandalism on wikipedia. The sprotection is there to stay, but I don't see why that dominating and distracting tag should. Also there's an issue with the tagged lack of references in the "Health, medicine, and Social Security" section. Shanes 09:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a section that needs the citing of it's sources. Certainly not a trait of Wikipedia's best. A featured articles should not include improvement tags. -- ★Ukdragon37★talk  13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Interesting article; however, the references will have to be added. KILO-LIMA 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This is all-in-all, a choppy and poorly written article. I object on the following grounds:
    • Stability. Per Andrew. The FA criteria states that, "'stable' means that an article does not change significantly from day to day. The problem is that this subject does change from day to day. Worries about future vandalism or future POV-pushing is not a valid FA objection. However, the content itself hasn't stabilized enough for us to write a Featured Article. If it is promoted, it will surely deserve a WP:FARC as soon as Bush makes his next notable move or decision.
    • Inline Citations. As noted before, these are missing from many sections within the article. This is particularly notable as you move further down the article. There are also lines that, without citation, may violate NPOV. For example, "It is speculated that it is the organization which launched a coordinated string of attacks in Madrid, Spain." Wikipedia and its authors do not speculate and do original research — cite something to back this up.
    • Brilliant Prose. This article is very choppy and not well-written at all. It may have at one time, but so much editing has made it so that the language no longer flows smoothly. Look at the subsections under domestic and foreign policy. Many of these are unreferenced, single sentence paragraphs.
    • Images. Most of these meet fair use rationale. However, there's an image in the middle that is currently up for deletion. Things like that should be caught before an article is put up for its FA candidacy. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I removed two problem images from the article --Jaranda wat's sup 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Tony Blair got featured - it was stable as in "consistently true", same as GW Bush --PopUpPirate 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Asking for trouble. This page get enough vandalism already. Ask again when he's out of office. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine the horror that will occur when it hits the main page, but I don't think that's a valid criterion for oppose, as we can't meet it. I move to strike this one out. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article has improved since I last read it. I disagree that "is a target of vandalism" should prevent an article from qualifying for WP:FAC's stability requirement. That said, the article appears to rely entirely upon external links for referencing, raising questions about comprehensiveness given the array of literature about the subject, and is missing references entirely in a number of places. Also contains a number of spurious categories (American Aviators? Worst Actor Razzie?!?). Since subject of the article is also a Cat, that cat should be itself categorized as a subcat of the non-spurious categories. Jkelly 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article, meets all main criteria, don't let the vandals win - lock the page! --PopUpPirate 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - for startes, external links used as references should be properly formatted and cited, instead of just an external link in the middle of the article. Also, needs quite a lot of improvement in prose and some of it reads a little biased. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG oppose. Not only could it be more stable, even considering it as a current event, but since FA's are not protected, it will just be severe POV/penis images/other nonsense 1/2 the time.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Rebelguys2. - Mikker ... 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Always unstable. Always vandalised. Always protected or semi-protected. Wait until at least he's out of office. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this article is controversial. Not only that, we have to deal with vandalism. Maybe after 2009, when he leaves office. :D --Terence Ong 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets ALL the main criteria. --Siva1979Talk to me09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unstable. --Khoikhoi 06:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bush is the 42nd President, not the 43rd. (The article calls him the 43rd President of the United States)

Technically you are correct, GW Bush is only the 42nd person to be president, but his is the 43rd presidency. This is because Grover Cleveland was elected to non-consecutive terms and is thus counted as both the 22nd and 24th president. See List of US Presidents. Also please sign your comments with four tildes (~). The Catfish 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I strongly object to all the objections of this article based on vandalism. That's not an actionable concern. However, this article is about a current leader, and since new developments arise frequently which are notable, the article is currently unstable, and will remain as such until after he is replaced by his successor in 2008. This is an actionable objection, because it can be addressed... by waiting 2 years. There are also some citation issues, possible length issues (summary style please, but I'm willing to hear other opinions as to the validity of the current length) and things like writting style that could be addressed, but at the moment, for FA purposes, these issues are moot due to the primary stability requirement. Come back in two years, we'll try again. Fieari 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Too unstable Frenzberrie 01:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. This article needs to use Wikipedia:Summary style. A lot of the information on the presidency should be covered in a separate article on the Bush Administration, and not explained in detail in this article. Also, the article is really choppy, with a lot of 2-3 line paragraphs. They should be merged together to promote a natural flow of text. Bush is the only U.S. President to be the father of twins. Trivial facts - what's the point of that? Important people in Bush's life and career looks out of place in the article. Remove that section and add its contents to sections in the article that could use that information. I don't have a problem with the fact that this is an unstable article. If we continue to object solely on the basis of an article's stability, we're never going to have a controversial topic/figure appear on the Main page ever. AreJay 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Articles dealing with current events are not suitable subjects for FAC's, especially those (like this one) that receive vandalism every day. Wait another 10-15 years for this to pass as an FA, and (I highly recommend) focus on an earlier president for now. --Slgrandson 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_W._Bush/archive1&oldid=1210506700"