Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gerald Ford/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [1].

Gerald Ford edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: Jtmichcock, Veracious Rey , WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WikiProject Michigan

I am nominating this featured article for review because I was shocked to find that it only dedicates 4 sentences to Ford's presidency, and has apparently been like this since last year. Additionally, it has undergone tons of editing over the years, with entire sections being revised drastically, and more than half the images have not survived since the last FAR in January 2007. TheCoffee (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are 1c concerns, as many of the sources are superficial and there are many dead and irrelevant links.[2] —mattisse (Talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ouch; when an article on a President of the United States devotes more space to the man's scouting and athletics activities than his presidency, there's a major problem. If this was at FARC already, I would !vote delist just on that problem alone. I will do what I can, but my reading material on Ford is extremely limited. Otumba (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Located the edit which removed the vast majority of the presidency section: [3]. I can see the logic behind the editor's justification, "pretty much redundant from the Presidency of Gerald Ford article", and I do not believe the editor is deserving of any backlash. However, I think we can all agree that "Presidency of X" articles are meant as an 'overflow' area almost, where details of X's presidency that are not notable in the context of Ford's life in general but which are still notable in the context of his presidency are placed. "Presidency of X" articles are not meant as a substitute for a sizeable summary on X's main article. Otumba (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with that statement. Things like bills passing would be a good example. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images

The main image looks airbrushed. I wonder if it could be replaced with an original? DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC – Many tags scattered throughout, and the article's scope is off-balance, as the lack of text on his presidency indicates. I would also expect to see some of the books listed in the general references used for cites; as of now, 1c is clearly not met. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested criteria are lack of balance, referencing, alt text, coverage. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – A large section on his presidency has been re-added, but there are too many 1c issues. I count at least 15 tags in various places, and no effort has been made to improve sourcing quality with books. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that a good deal of work has been done since I last commented here, and the scope is improved. However, citation issues are still present. There is still one cite tag in the presidency section, and several unsourced paragraphs, a couple of which include quotes (should definitely be cited). A couple of books have been added as references, but some of the Internet references are problematic; I see YouTube (ref 38) and Find a Grave (ref 127), neither of which would be considered a reliable source, never mind a high-quality one. With these factors in mind, my 'vote' stands. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and lots of unaddressed issues. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just getting into this one late. The main issue appeared to be scope, which is much improved as Giants2008 indicates - but is it improved enough? I'll start work on the tags this afternoon. Once tags and referencing are fixed, I'd like some guidance on what still needs work as far as the scope is concerned. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked through about a third of the article, and many of the refs have been re-linked or revised. I did find a paragraph of straight verbatim copyvio under the Warren Commission (!); this has been rewritten. Continuing to work through the tags - and please tag any problems I miss. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something, all of the tags should be taken care of, either through re-citing the fact or revising the statement to match the source given. In one case, I left a citations needed tag; We know Pres. Ford died on 26 December, which is both Boxing Day and St. Stephen's Day. What citation should I use on the statement that Ford Died on Boxing Day? The original citation was the homily delivered during the service, which doesn't mention it as far as I can tell. Other than that tidbit, though, the sources should be in good order. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL. Have image issues been addressed ? There is some faulty layout in sections per WP:ACCESS and faulty WP:DASHes (article used spaced emdashes). Has reliability of sources been reviewed? There is still a cite tag. Curly quotes throughout need to be fixed. Citation cleanup is needed: book titles and periodicals/newspapers should be in italics, and some websources have incomplete info. There are many deadlinks and dabs that need to be fixed (see the toolbox). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Citations Needed tag was mine, addressed above, regarding Boxing Day and St. Stephen's Day - what would you recommend, there? If the fact that the date of death matches holiday(s) is considered common or obvious knowledge, then the citation can go away entirely, since the date of death itself is confirmed elsewhere, I believe. All of the (reference) links tagged as dead have been re-sourced, removed, or re-linked; I'll work on the rest today and tomorrow. We had a few tagged as unreliable or source-doesn't-say-that; I refactored the text to match the source or removed the reference. In one case, the source did actually say that. So I'm confidence in the reliability of the sources; as you say, I'll take another sweep through for formatting. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't forget the alt text. You can click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page to see what needs to be done. Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the portrait in the infobox and the photo of the assassination attempt, alt-text is done for all images currently in the article. I'll figure out the assassination picture shortly, and I'm not certain how to add alt text to the image in an infobox - so, something to work on. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. The new alt text looks very good. For the infobox, you need to add the parameters "|alt=put portrait alt text here |signature_alt=Gerald R. Ford". Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to check, I see that that was done. Thanks for whipping the alt text into shape. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue weight problems There is still a big lack of info about the VN War, about how Thieu of SV appealed for aid after the ceasefire was violated and there were calls for US bombings of Vietnam and aid, except taht Congree blocked it. This is much more notable than the actual evacuation of the embassy and a lot of other stuff in the foreign relations (as well as the football stuff). It may be symptomatic of other uneven coverage YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one smallish paragraph on his time as House Minority Leader. Needs more meat (surely he must have done some compromise deals etc during that time to pass legislation), especially as the Navy section is about four tiems longer (Ford was a lieutenant commander, equivalent to an army major). YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've greatly expanded the section on Ford's time as Minority Leader. I'm not 100% sold on the flow of the section, but the material is there. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded our coverage of Vietnam, focusing on Ford's (unsuccessful) request for aid, and his declaration that the war had ended at Tulane. I think we'll need to add some section headings to the Foreign Policy section, to tidy things up, but the material is there for review. I'm done for today. Next up: Endashes (!). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Ultraexact for an update. We can hold while he works. Marskell (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've made some progress in the last week. I plan to work on the Minority Leader section today, and vietnam after that. The undue weight is a big issue, agreed. Once that's done, though, we'll fix citations, endashes, and the other items. Still working on it, thanks for the time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of time for the week, and still haven't covered Vietnam. I plan to do a section that arcs from the situation when he took office to the fall of Saigon, and the political fallout as a result. Maybe 6 paragraphs? I'd like a few days to pull it together, though, if possible. In the meantime, are there other areas of undue weight (beyond foreign policy) to address? Presidency of Gerald Ford is just as light in several areas, so there's nothing to merge back on this. Thanks again for the time to get this right. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The undue weight and endash issues have been resolved, if someone wants to doublecheck my work - I only found one dash that was improper, which worries me a little. I'm working through citations now, item by item. Other than headings in the Foreign Policy section, what other items are still in need of attention? Thanks again for the extra time to get this one right. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of moving this comment from Giants down. Marskell (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I saw that a good deal of work has been done since I last commented here, and the scope is improved. However, citation issues are still present. There is still one cite tag in the presidency section, and several unsourced paragraphs, a couple of which include quotes (should definitely be cited). A couple of books have been added as references, but some of the Internet references are problematic; I see YouTube (ref 38) and Find a Grave (ref 127), neither of which would be considered a reliable source, never mind a high-quality one. With these factors in mind, my 'vote' stands. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm continuing to slog through the remaining references; I'm about a third of the way through, and have removed several problem sources - including that youtube clip. I've also added some more solid sources. Still working on it, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I think I've caught all of the references with issues - specifically, the ones mentioned above and the other flawed sources. I've added several in their place, as well. Are there any other specific referencing issues I should address? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no further comments coming, I'm considering the delists stale and closing this as keep. Thank you for taking the time Ultra! Marskell (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me the time to get it done. Much appreciated! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Gerald_Ford/archive2&oldid=1138477021"